Global private-equity firm TPG has bought Australia’s largest poultry producer, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. for about $850 million. TPG outbid rivals including Blackstone, Affinity and Chinese agribusiness company New Hope.
Inghams, which also operates in New Zealand, was founded in 1918 in bushland in Sydney’s South-west by Walter Ingham, who bought six hens and a rooster for his son. Ingham’s son, also called Walter, grew the business, and it passed to his sons, Jack and Bob, when he died in the 1950s. Jack Ingham died in 2003, and Bob continued to run the business until July 2012, when he put the company up for sale.
TPG will retain Inghams’ existing management. “An important part of the decision for me was finding a buyer who would ensure that our customers will continue to receive the highest level of service and our employees would be well looked after. I believe I found that in TPG,” Mr Ingham said in a statement.
Inghams Enterprises is Australia’s largest poultry producer, with sales of over AU$2 billion in 2012. According to Retail Media’s 2012 ‘Retail World’, Inghams has 45.1 per cent share by value and 48.3 per cent share by volume of Australia’s $150.4 million poultry smallgoods market.
TPG is a global investor based in New York with several well-known Australian business investments. TPG, which has $54.5 billion capital under management, attracted considerable publicity with its structured acquisition of the Myer retail group several years ago.
Other major Australian investments include the private healthcare and hospital group HealthScope, transport infrastructure company Asciano (owner of Patrick Ports and Pacific National Rail), Mammoth Pet (Australia’s largest pet specific retailer, under the Petbarn banner), and Alinta Energy.
TPG is also the owner of the global US-based Burger King chain, Beringer Wine, and the European-based Strauss-Elite coffee group.
Eye Spy is my weekly shopping experience where I go and ‘mystery shop’ randomly a big corporate retailer in hope of finding some retailing gems to offer the small business retailer to help grow their business! I will in most instances refrain from naming the exact location of the store, but I’ll clearly name and promote the brand.
Date = 8/3/14 Retailer = Petbarn Location = South/East Brisbane
INTRO
For those of us who have a pet, dog, cat or other, we all know the upkeep it takes to just maintain a healthy and safe family pet. I have a 13 year old Beagle, and he’s been such a loyal and gentle friend since I adopted him from a respite in 2007. Getting towards his ‘twilight’ years, it’s important to keep him in tip top condition, especially with 2 young kids who climb all over him like a jungle gym:) So, whilst picking up some bones and worming treatment, I put my local Petbarn through this weeks edition of ‘Eye Spy’.
There’s a lot to like about our ‘furry friends’ when it comes to retail. The Australian ‘Pet’ retailing market has an estimated worth of over $5Billion, cross that over with an estimated $2Billion that lies in the Vet Health market, there’s a lot of reasons why just in November, Petbarn and GreenCross Vets combined forces. Privately owned with 224 stores across Australia & New Zealand. Petbarn was established in 1979 and it’s head office is in Alexandria, Sydney. GreenCross Vets recent acquisition of Mammoth Pet Holdings, Petbarns owner, Petbarn & GreenCross Vets merger saw a transaction in exchange for 52.6 million shares to Mammoth shareholders. This represents 58.25% of the merged company’s share register. The estimated turn over according to Executive Chariman Jeff David for 2014 will see the combined forces top $443Million in sales and $21Million in profit after tax. It’s evident to see that Petbarn is now regarded as the number 1 player in the pet market for Australia. So, let’s see if some of this ‘strategy’ transcends onto the shop floor for it’s end users.
Shop Entrance – Shop front entrances are so vitally important. It’s the retailers ‘gateway’ to their customers. If it’s closed up, cluttered with stock, tarnished with smeared, dirty windows and old signage, then that’s like Buckingham Palace having an overgrown garden and rusty gates. I measure ‘Shop Entrance’ based on how it makes me feel as I approach. I look for it to be open, clean, inviting and above all, it needs to deliver an emotional message to me with what this retailer is about, and what’s going on inside. I look for a sense of ‘curiosity’ or ‘value’ driven messages compelling me to come in.
For: Glass fronted, full signage from top to toe with big bright messaging you can see and read from over 50 meters away. There’s no mistaking the bold ‘yellow & black’ of Petbarn’s corporate colours and branding. My local store is located within a home maker centre, so passing traffic if you like could well be 100 meters away, hence the reason to be BIG, BRIGHT and BOLD. On entering the store, I immediately noticed something that really sets the scene for these stores, which is “Pet’s Welcome” and just to the right of the entrance, there is a drink station for dogs. BRILLIANT! The entrance is wide, which is highly necessary as there is the option to use a shopping trolly to lug those 20kg bags of dog food back to the car.
Against: Couldn’t really find anything! The glass was clean, had relevant store opening and payment options displayed to the left of the entrance. It was easy and inviting to walk into. Well branded with immediate ‘Deals & Saves’ as you enter right in front of you. For any big box retailer looking for an example of how to set up a ‘bulky goods’ shop entrance, go and visit Petbarn, they do this brilliantly.
Petbarn Shop Entrance = 10/10
Store Ambience – Store ambience is my measure of the aesthetics, mood, accessibility and shop-ability. I’m looking for spacious environments that enhance one’s ability to make purchase decisions. I literally measure my heart rate and see if it’s risen, for me I know, if I’m frustrated, my heart rate rises, therefor I become impatient and disillusioned with why I’m in the store. I look at the lighting and see if it’s showing off what needs to be displayed, which is always stock and signage/promotion.
For: Well lit up, BIG WIDE isles, easy to navigate. It was perfect from a ‘stand back and look for what I’m after’ point of view (see image). I could stand and think “OK, I want dog bones, where would they be?” and I could see where they are from the other side of the store. LOVE THAT! It all makes sense too, if you need dog wash, it’s in the isle where dog washes, and other medical treatments or health options are. A 3 year old could find what they were looking for if they wanted to, infact, my son did, which was the kittens in cages very quickly The signage is brilliant! It’s 100% consistent, I couldn’t find 1 product that was missing a price tag, sign or indicator. #petbarn also make brilliant use of their signage to tell interesting facts about your pets! What a clever thing to do. So instead of just have $19.99 on an A4 sign,
They have this >
Against: Believe it or not, NO IN STORE MUSIC? I know, maybe it’s something to do with the animals, I’m not sure? But aside from the occasional bit of noise the instore pets may make, or the register transactions being processed, it was a little off putting having a shop so quiet. I also noticed 2 LCD screens not turned on. 1 was for a promotional stand and the other was behind the front counter. Would have liked these to be on and doing their thing. Waste of time and money having them in the shop if they’re switched off.
Petbarn Store Ambience = 7.5/10
Stock Range & Offer – What I’m looking for is a) is there an offer or range of stock that supports the overall brand message if there is one, or target customer needs and market trends and b) how is the range architecture and blue print? Is it clean, with clear examples of good, better, best range offers? Does it have clearly defined categories that increase a customers ability to look, find and buy?
For: For me, I can’t see any holes. If it’s for a basic domestic pet, be it dog, cat, fish, rabbit, or bird, they have it. That said, there’s a real sense that the buying team really understand how to build range architecture and eco systems. They know what they’re doing and it’s evident that there’s industry expert influence (be it Vet) and advice to get the range concise and succinct. It’s just so easy to shop in a Petbarn, and I can only count the 1 time I’ve been in prior and the dog food I’m after wasn’t available.
Against: For a store that has themselves firmly positioned within a home maker centre, and I can only presume that most #petbarn stores are, I think that they need to work on some ‘stronger’ instore specials and ‘multi buy’ options. When you have a customer who has to drive and park specifically to get to your store, I firmly believe that the more ‘Muffins – 1 for $3 OR 3 for $4′ you can strategically create, the better. The aim is to compliment the core or primary product, in #petbarns case, it’s say dog food, with as many ‘Multi Buy’ or ‘Impulse’ options as you can to benefit the customer. So, if someone is buying dog food, either have a multi price deal for more bags, or have a deal associated with the dog food which creates an additional purchase. Now, I know that Petbarn do have multi deals on ‘Some’ dogfoods, but I would almost insist, it needs to be on all, and they need to work harder on ‘bundle’ offers on cheap accessories etc.
Petbarn Stock Range & Offer = 8/10
POS & Front Counter – Having a clean, accessible, identifiable yet non-dominant sale counter is a corner piece of any great retailing layout. It should be a large enough area that customer can feel at ease when parting with cash, but not so big as to create an immovable barrier that staff get behind and hide.
For: The structure of their front counter is absolutely brilliant. It’s very similar to say a larger retailer like Target, but on a smaller scale. Has a cue station with impulse items merchandised along it beautifully. The terminals have all of the relevant information required to make a purchase, and there’s some fantastic ‘added’ value such as strong promotion of the loyalty program, pet insurance and a clip chain to clip your dog to while you make your purchase, (see images) – I LOVED THAT IDEA!
Against: There were boxes of stock on the counter!! You know what this says to me, the manager is trying to do too much, when on a Saturday, it should simply be all about just serving customers and keeping the place in tip top shape. I see this happen so so much, where on a Saturday morning, the manager thinks, “Ah, it’s quiet, I’ll go and grap 4 boxes of stock for the register operator to unpack!” and then come 10am, boom, it’s busy, and those boxes just sit there like the dirty big eye sores that they are during your busiest days trade. If that wasn’t there, if the register area and front counter was clean and crisp, it would have been another 10/10!
Petbarn POS & Front Counter = 7.5/10
Sales & Customer Service – This is where the deals are done. I always try and engage a customer service representative to greet me, start up some general conversation and then move me into an ‘interview’ process where they’re trying to identify my needs and wants. I also look for the sales persons ability to package up a sale, close the sale, and or offer to come back ensuring the future of our relationship (between retailer and customer)
For: When I spoke with the staff, they were nice. The problem was, on a Saturday morning at 10am, there were 4 team members, 3 of whom were on the registers processing sales, so the rest of this big store was left to 1 girl to try and service. Not good enough. When I got to the front counter, I asked the team member for a specific type of worming treatment for my dog, and asked if there was a difference between the Inteceptor brand or another similar brand. The team member knew her stuff, and said I was on the right track with brand I had originally asked for. She then asked if I would like a 3 or 6 month treatment, and processed the sale efficiently.
Against: As I said, the team seemed overwhelmed by the ‘pace’ of the store. It was like it caught them off guard? In any sense, it felt as though there was a rostering disconnect there when I was in the store. I also wasn’t that pleased with way my sale was processed. Although it was efficient, I wouldn’t have said it was friendly and mind blowing. I’m already a member of the loyalty program, so there wasn’t a need to push or ask to join on that, but I noticed other offers which could have been mentioned such as Pet Insurance. Aside from this interaction, I couldn’t gauge how a sales process is offered based on the fact that again, there wasn’t an offer of service. No greeting, Nothing till I got to the tills.
Petbarn Sales & Customer Service = 5/10
Total Experience = 38/50
Bonus Points?
Yes there are! I’m awarding 3! Yep, 3. Although my shopping experience lacked a little polish, all in all, I think Petbarn are certainly on the right track.
Bonus point 1 = Instore Services. They offer soo many instore services, from dog water refreshments, to clipping your dog to a chain while paying for goods, they even have a well house ‘DOG WASH CENTRE’ inside the store. Genius!
Bonus point 2 = Instore Signage. So many signs have interesting or valuable messages on them. This obviously creates that magic word ‘THEATRE’ but also, it’s a great selling tool.
Bonus point 3 = Consistent Theming! Throughout the entire store, everything is completed consistently! From the corporate colours, to the use of fonts, to the fixtures & fittings. There’s just no mistaking that you’re in a #petbarn store. Well done!
Adjusted TOTAL EXPERIENCE = 41/50 – A really solid store, so many things are great, just lacks a service touch. Could have so easily been 50/50
My 3 key take aways from shopping at Petbarn were:
1 – Get a colour, a font, and own it! Everything that Petbarn does is done in consistent corporate colours and themes.
2 – Offer as much FREE value as possible – So Petbarn offer so many additional free services (as mentioned) which really helps create theatre within their stores.
3 – Know exactly what you NEED to range, and not what you CAN range – As stated, Petbarn’s range is rich, fruitful but still concise and succinct. It’s been well created and curated.
Well that’s Eye Spy Episode #5, stay tuned for next week, I said that I’m going to go and tap on the shoulder a retailing franchise who I believe do customer service and theatre, better than anyone else in the business. I‘ve done the visit, and BOY Oh BOY, has this retailer got SERVICE just NAILED!
Kristian
TheRetailGuy
READER COMMENTS
Strewth mate! $300,000 could buy a lot of hay! If the RSPCA knows so much about looking after drought affected cattle, why in the hell didn’t they help the lady by buying and providing hay for her if she couldn’t afford it herself? They have to use legal muscle instead. No humanity enters the equation with these sorts.
we had a case in 1990, when we closed our meat plant down for xmas holiday in Kempsey NSW. the rspca came along and shot 60 sheep, with police revolvers, for being thin. they had not the sense to shoot the sheep in the head, they aimed for the heart. These sheep were plain trade ewes for the manufacturing meat trade, they had been purchsed two days before in the market at Dubbo. As if not ban enough in 2001, the rspca did the same at our farm in Victoria, with sheep again being held on the farm en-route to the meat works. This shoot first, ask questions afterwards is not new. they are a bloody disgrace to Australia and a parasite on the community. No one wants to see cruelty and in the farming and meat industry it is fortunatley very rare. Thin animals are usually the most hardy, otherwise they would be dead. We have seen enough of these people involving themselves in the live shipping trade. a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Aldo Gallo Argentine Beef Packers SA
The worst case of farmer victimisation I have heard. The farming community should condemn the RSPCA for their actions. Some of the cattle were gut shot – absolutely shocking. Cattle that had NLIS tags were not scanned and just buried on the stock route and are still on Mrs Downey’s account. The police should charge the RSPCA and the RLPB ranger in attendance for contrevening the NLIS legislation.
Quote “comply with a magistrate’s order that she pay the RSPCA’s $295,488.99 costs”. Come off it!! The RSPCA should keep their hands out of the rural sector. I guess by extending their so called interests on to drought-stricken farms they can find the money to keep the RSPCA up and running. I personally have put in a complaint about a starving horse that was so hungry could catch a biscuit of hay in mid air by it’s teeth like a dog catching a frisby and of course what did the rspca do? nothing!! But then rings up our property and has a nerve to suggest we give them a donation to save animals!! I suggest to the rspca to stay out of the rural sector as they don’t have the experience of livestock or the knowledge to interfere especially when the country is in drought. Since when does it cost $295,488 to put down 48 head of cattle!! This story above is unjust and the lady in question should be compensated and offered aid, not discriminated against and used as a way to profit the RSPCA’s expenses!!!
These geeks should stick to injured koalas and cats up trees! The RSPCA has been hijacked by radical greenie/vegos with a hidden agenda. Several of the cattle jumped fences attempting to escape the rifle – they can’t have been too weak!
The RSPCA is a charity whose agenda is not representative of Australia, as a collective Australians, do not elect someone to the society to represent their views. State Governments have abrogated their responsibilities and given powers of authority to them. I find it absolutely unbelievable that to shoot 48 animals would cost $295,488.99, and this is supposed to be Australia’s authority on animal welfare. Instead of giving drought stricken farmers the Jack Boot treatment for that cost they could have provided feed to the animals for many years. It’s time someone held the RSPCA accountable.
Wow! The RSPCA are taking a tough stance! I would like to know what this lady’s options were and how many others there are in Australia in a similar situation! If the cattle were in such bad condition, why didn’t the RSPCA take them from this poor, old woman before it was too late – or is it because they couldn’t afford to feed the herd either! Isn’t there anything in funds to help farmers in this situation or is Australia really that worse off that it can’t offer assistance in anyway? How about the RSPCA? Do they know of anyone that could help out people in this situation? Like I said, it would have been better for the RSPCA if readers could see their suggestions rather than presume what they did. Not a very good ‘PR’ exercise for them, is it?
If there is a sucessful prosecution against this manager of livestock (and there is) then she should lose the right to the cattle and face a full penality. Real producers, ones who can properly manage their land (in good times and bad) and who genuinely care for their stock, should not be branded by the community as irresponsible and cruel. The only way to prevent urban communities viewing us as ratbags is to ensure that the people who violate the law are held to account. If we protect or defend such behaviour then the community will act to put in even tougher legislation – and give nutters like PETA or Animals Angels more support!
What a disgrace. And where was the RSPCA when the Minister for EPA failed to provide sufficient food for his Kangaroo herd? They just sat on their useless butts, polished their jack-boots and watched as the Minister’s ‘Roo herd was busily munching away on Mrs Downey’s fodder reserves, that’s where. Is anyone in any doubt, now, that there is one legal standard for them and another altogether for ordinary folk?
I cannot comment on this lady and if she did or did not do the right thing. However, the RSPCA has yet again lost huge respect in the community for a bungled operation and their right to shoot first and ask questions later must be challenged. The old RSPCA would have helped the lady manage the situation and not give lawyers a huge windfall… shame on you and I hope the RSPCA is made publicly accountable – at the very least those involved must be sacked and never be given such discretion again.
AKP you need to think before you comment…drought is not something that one farmer can control. Government policy has worked against rural Australia for decades…NLIS is a classic example…someone’s mate seems to have been the only financial beneficiary, oh and a few political donations, I’d guess. The RSPCA has disintegrated into an inefficient farmer bashing group who are more interested in killing animals than assisting them or their owners. $300,000 to kill 48 cattle? What did they do, anaesthetise them after giving them a last meal of corn and molasses with a side dish of caviar? Hell, that’d still not add up to $300,000…maybe the RSPCA had the big dinner and weekend away to celebrate the big payout they were anticipating…that’ll be the LAST donation the RSPCA will ever see from me! Criminal persecution of farmers is un-Australian and what they have done here is closer to criminal negligence towards those animals than care. Govts are as culpable for allowing them the power to do this to people or to animals… Care for animals by killing them all off…hmmm, bizzare don’t you think?
So, it seems the Aust Beef Assn were right about the uselessness of NLIS! As the only group outspoken about the failings of the system, both producers and consumers are paying the price for the pitifully useless system of tagging and tracing animals. Too many pollies making too many decisions based on political donations and policies for their big corporate mates to profit from. The global financial crisis is the result of this sort of ineptitude and greed – and persecuton of this farmer is no solution.
My thoughts of the RSPCA plummetted after this case happened. Ever since I have not given them any donations when they ring up and tell them very clearly why. Not only did they gut shoot cattle but they also left calves without a mother and the lady had to hand rear them. Absolute disgrace and the only winners are the lawyers. What a pity they didn’t do something useful and put the money towards feed. It is very hard in drought to keep cattle fat & shiny but 99% of us try very hard. Let’s hope someone sees sense before the poor lady loses everything.
Good on you RSPCA – you have finally shown your true colours. You must be mighty proud of the fact you have hounded a lady who has seen more droughts and rough times in the bush than you have had showers. Where the heck were you in droughts when native animals are starving to death? Did you bother to sue the idiots who have given you these powers to prosecute when they failed miserably to feed kangaroos, emus and other animals? Don’t ever come begging for donations around our area – it’s amazing how word of mouth can cut off the charity money supply.
It just goes to show the value of the RSPCA. They should be given a dose of their own medicine.
Meg – get a grip! This has nothing to do with NLIS – but since you raised it – I recently had some weaners returned to me via the pound courtesy of NLIS. The cattle didn’t have my brand or earmark – without NLIS they would have been sold account our local council. If you are too lazy or miserable to get behind this scheme then get out of the industry – you might get a job with the RSPCA!
Would Ruth Downey’s property be close to Pilliga Nature Reserve or Warrumbungle National Park perchance? Sounds like they want to push her off the land.
Not knowing the full facts of this sad case, makes it difficult to comment objectively. However, the RSPCA officer did state in the article: “There is no doubt that her lack of finances contributed, however, the fact is she failed to follow any advice that was given to her,” Mr O’Shannessy said. “Mrs Downey was not receptive to any of the advice she was given of her management decisions in times of drought. “The frustration in this case is had some of the advice been taken, it wouldn’t have progressed.” Sounds to me like the RSPCA have done all they could, remembering that they are a charity with limited resources and an enormous job. I recall a year or two ago that the RSPCA in one state actually set up a special fund to assist drought afflicted farmers by providing them with free feed. It would of course be ideal if there was a separate rural assistance organisation that farmers could call on to prevent animals suffering. But it appears to me that in some cases farmers are just too proud to ask for help or to even acknowledge that their animals are suffering and need help.
Another glaring issue this sad case highlights is that there are rural areas of Australia that simply should not be used to farm animals, or anything probably. Australia is a dry continent and drought is part of the normal climate. Cattle and sheep require huge amounts of water for drinking and to grow feed. The end products are the most water intensive and GHG emitting of all our food commodities. Our governments should be paying farmers on degraded drought-stricken low rainfall land to change to more environmentally sustainable options where possible, or to leave. With climate change and our diminishing water supplies the suffering is only going to get worse. People need to face up to the only realistic and progressive solution to reduce this kind of unnecessary suffering and ongoing environmental degradation.
There is more to this story than meets the eye. The “Costs” awarded against Mrs Downey go solely to the legal team representing the RSPCA, not the RSPCA itself. The legal team leading the case against Mrs Downey is the firm Smythe Wozniak of St Marys in Sydney. It is curious that the President of the RSPCA is Mr Andrew Wozniak of the same law firm.
How is it right for the RSPCA to destroy this farmer’s income generator, and then expect a cost levied against her to be paid? Since when does it cost $6,156 per head to put them down? How is gut shooting humane? The RSPCA should be brought to account for their actions by way of a ministerial enquiry.
A long time ago as a rural vet I was asked by the RSPCA to examine a dead bull for a cruelty case. It had a foot missing which was healed over into a well worn callus like an elephant’s foot. The bull was shot in the paddock following a passer-by’s complaint and questions asked later. On investigation it was revealed the “cruel” owner was actually in hospital being treated at the time the of the neglect. I have been both an expert witness for and against the RSPCA. The time I was against I was asked to resign from my government job. The “cruel” accused was allegedly starving his cows by “confining” them to a 600 acre paddock adjacent National Park. All I found him guilty of was some cows dying of old age because he had not found time to mouth and cull them. He won the case. People who donate to “charity” should make sure charity is being performed with their money. A modern translation of the old charity word is love. If only we have love for one another!
From my copy of costs awarded by the Magistrate against Mrs Downey, were to a private law firm, Smythe Wozniak Solicitors of St Marys, not the RSPCA. This law firm is engaged by the RSPCA to prosecute, as they have done for over a decade. Andrew Christopher Wozniak is the president of the NSW RSPCA, and he handed to the magistrate his memorandum of costs – $295,588.99 Fellow NSW – RSPCA director and Barrister, Paul O’Donnell, is on Wozniak’s team as the junior council with a listing on the memorandum of fees. Part of the breakdown is, Smythe Wozniak Solicitors charged $102,246.20, Mr Paul O’Donnell, $83,511.25 with the senior councils fees of $85,800, plus disbursement costs. Wozniak set in place a three tier legal team, expected of a high profile murder trial, with two Senior Council to lead the attack with a junior council, all before a single Magistrate, no jury, to prosecute 73 year old farmer, Ruth Downey. How much did the RSPCA collect from the cake after “All The Presidents Men”, a big fat ZERO. This would explain why RSPCA chief inspector David O’Shannessy refused to say what action the RSPCA might take if Mrs Downey failed to pay the legal bill, you may need to ask President Wozniak that question. A decade of President Wozniac providing legal services is an interesting investigation we still are working with at SOS-NEWS
I know what i will be saying next time I get asked to make a donation to the RSPCA.
NEVER AGAIN WILL I DONATE A CENT TO THE RSPCA!!!! This case is a Public Relations screw up of monumental proportions. Clearly the RSPCA has been higjacked by an extremist element. It appears their new motto is “Shoot first, then persecute by prosecution.” Absolutely discgraceful!!!
Dear AKP. If the RSPCA is now going to shoot first and ask questions later, I would suggest that they wear bullet proof vests in future. Of the previous blogs, yours was the only one in support of the RSPCA and the most asinine. It seems obvious that PETA and Animal Angels are not the only nutters (your words). If the RSPCA were serious about animal welfare, they would have assisted the lady in feeding her cattle. If a farmer had gut-shot an animal he was attempting to put down, the RSPCA would have taken serious umbrage. But that’s OK if the RSPCA does it. Not recording the NLIS tags is considered a serious offence. You can’t put the blame for this on Mrs Downey. The killing of her cattle was instituted and committed by the RSPCA and out of her control. I just hope Mrs Downey’s neighbours band together and help her begin legal proceedings for compensation. As one correspondent pointed out, they couldn’t have been in too rough a condition if they could jump the fence in trying to escape the rifle. The fact that they were burying them on the stock route seems to add credence to this statement.
And the RSPCA ask the public, including farmers for monetary donations. My answer to the RSPCA=you must be dreaming.
This whole thing stinks. Using a team of expensive lawyers in order to create a bill large enough to remove the whole ownership of this lady via costs. One of the laws that came out of old England was that a person could not have their livelihood taken from them in order to pay a bill – as obviously, they could not pay it without being able to earn! The fact that our laws appear to have reverted to the Dark Ages is a sad reflection of quasi-government corporations that want what the people own, and a judiciary that answers first to those entities. In all such cases as this, the human is considered of far less value than the animal. Folks, we’re going downhill with the brakes off!
the RSPCA is just a bunch of pathetic desk jockies who don’t have any idea about animals. it seems their only response is to sue people or press charges. their only consideration is for the animals, of which they are less in touch with than many of the people that they are attacking. there needs to be some serious changes in Gov regulations restricting their rights.
The actions of the RSPCA and their employees are a disgrace. Anyone who donates to the RSPCA has rocks for brains. No television station should now have anything to do with such a nasty organisation. Any organisation singling out old ladies as prime targets cannot be allowed to air their program on television. The legal people involved should be disbarred and banned from practice for ever.
Spread the word, you all. Everyone knows at least 50 people who they can talk to about what the RSPCA did and why no one should ever give another dime to them. I hope they never get one cent from Ruth Downey.
Sharon, it sounds like Ruth Downey didn’t need any of the RSPCA’s advice. The way that the RSPCA behaved proves that no one should take their advice.
The RSPCA’s advice consisted of feeding instructions downloaded from the DPI’s web site. The RSPCA, RLPB and DPI’s officers had no clue about dairy cattle, especially during drought. Mrs Downey stuck to her feeding plan because it had worked for her during eight years of drought. The RSPCA obviously didn’t like someone (who knew what she was doing) refusing their advice. The cows were shot inhumanely. It should be the RSPCA prosecuted for animal cruelty, not Mrs Downey. (The humane way is one shot to the head, with no blood.) The RSPCA inspectors shot the cows in the stomachs and they were running and jumping fences. So much for the RSPCA’s claims they were weak.
Sharon, just to fill you in on some of the facts. First, the cattle were NOT starving. They had become quite lean when feed was hard to source but had been steadily improving all the time the RSPCA was hassling Mrs Downey. Two, the only “help” they offered was a feeding plan based on incorrect estimate of the weights of the cattle, which resulted in an inferior feeding regime to the one Mrs Downey was using and proving effective. Three, she HAD taken some of their “advice” in that she had greatly reduced the number of her cattle, in compliance with their orders.
This gets worse and worse! The revelations of Dr Bob and Mal Davies indicate a very smelly conflict of interest at the highest levels of the RSPCA. What a neat little set-up….The RSPCA pursue spurious claims, which are then over-serviced by Wozniak. It doesn’t matter if Mrs Downey can’t pay – the lawyers will still be paid by RSPCA out of donated funds. Good luck with your investigations Mal – you’re onto something here. Sounds like a job for ASIC to me – surely there are commercial laws governing charities.
The blood tests done on Ruth Downey’s cows, after the shooting, showed that they were NOT STARVING.
The independent expert witness at Ruth Downey’s trial stated that the blood tests taken on the cows after they were shot, showed that the cows were not starving.
First of all, I doubt the RSPCA appreciates the difference between beef cattle and dairy cattle. If being milked, or with a calf at foot, they are going through a lot of energy, and are usually thin in appearance. This does not make them “starving”. Maybe the RSPCA wants an obese apperance, which according to human health experts is bad for health, and would constitute bad management. Why does the RSPCA insist on murdering the stock of anyone who does not jump at their command, and in what way is the animal better off dead than alive and lean? The RSPCA seems to be intent on minding other people’s business and forcing their uninformed ideas onto graziers struggling to pay the banks and petrol companies to support their new record profits.
We should remember that if an animal welfare prosecution is successful in court, then it means that evidence of cruelty has been put in front of an experienced magistrate, tested and examined by the defence, and there was STILL a conviction. If Ruth Downey had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, she would not have been convicted. She may not have been deliberately trying to starve her animals, but she decided to keep them through some tough times. She had the option of selling them or putting them down. Nobody has the RIGHT to farm, and poor farmers will give our industry, which we need to survive, a bad name. Stop with the “Aussie Battler” mentality – make no mistake, there is no excuse for failing to provide animals with enough food nowadays, we are not living on the edges of the frontier, and we CAN take the tough decision to destock in times of hardship like drought. Ruth Downey, stop trying to garner sympathy for your cause, and concentrate on learning how to manage your animals so they are not living from hand to mouth all the time, that’s not farming, that’ s indulging in your hobby.