Tags
Page 1 |
16 Saturday May 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Page 1 |
16 Saturday May 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
animal cruelty, cruelty to animals, inspectors, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, RSPCA, RSPCA Inspectors
RSPCA Inspectors aim to prevent cruelty to animals by ensuring the enforcement of existing laws at federal and state level.
Sometimes there is a fine line between an owner who is simply not aware how to look after their pet properly, and whether the laws under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Legislation have been broken. While the situation may not match how we would like to see animals cared for, if the law hasn’t been broken the best our inspectors can do is seek to educate the animal’s owner about how better to look after their pet.
Our inspectors also rescue animals and assist with the management of wildlife, livestock and companion animals during emergencies and disasters, and inspect pet shops, sale yards, abattoirs, livestock operations, breeding establishments, and places where animals are kept and used for public entertainment.
We don’t have the resources to be able to call you back to let you know the progress of your complaint. If you call us to find out what happened, all we will be able to tell you if whether the Inspector has visited the premises or not; privacy laws prevent us from giving you more details.
After we have sent the details of your call to the relevant inspector, they will prioritise your issue against other calls received. Please note that we have 32 inspectors on the road across the state, which equates to approximately one metro inspector to every 281,250 people, and one regional inspector for every 50,030 square kilometers.
We receive around 12,000 cruelty complaints each year, so our inspectors are constantly weighing up which issue needs their attention first. If the animal is not in immediate danger, it may be a few days before an inspector can investigate.
Our inspectors work closely with national enforcement agencies, in particular the police and local authorities.
We only bring a prosecution where it is necessary and where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction against each suspect on each charge. When people have shown themselves to be wholly unable to look after animals, it can be the only way to make sure that other animals are not put at risk in the future. Prosecution also serves to reinforce the important message that animal abuse and neglect are not acceptable in a civilised society.
When making a cruelty report, you will be asked for your name and contact details. These are kept confidential and are never passed on to the offender. They are needed so an inspector can contact you for further information or to take a witness statement. You must have seen the animal and its condition for an inspector to have grounds to enter a person’s property.
If an animal is in immediate danger, such as trapped in a hot car, call your local police who can act under the same laws as an RSPCA inspector.
A cruelty investigation takes time and taking a matter to court can be a lengthy procedure. It sometimes takes months or even years for a court case to be finalised.
We need you to be our eyes, to enable us to better help you and the animal in question. So we will ask you a lot of questions to ensure we are able to provide the inspector with as much information as possible to help them prioritise the case.
You can ring the cruelty hotline for information at any time. If an investigation has found no breach of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or if an owner has been issued instructions about the welfare of an animal, you will be given this information. In many cases, however, details of an investigation cannot be given out.
Yes possibly, especially if you have been an eye witness to cruelty or neglect.
Email the inspectors@rspcansw.org.au and your query will be dealt with as soon as possible.
21 Tuesday Apr 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
There are concerns more stray cats and dogs will be euthanased in Tasmania after the RSPCA moved to dump some roles.
The animal welfare group has warned it may have to close unless it redefines itself and scales back responsibilities, including shedding pest control and stray animal management.
The group was also finalising an agreement to pass animal cruelty complaints involving large numbers of animals to the Department of Primary Industries for investigation.
Local Government Association Policy Director Katrena Stephenson said there were concerns more stray cats and dogs would be put down.
“It might mean there is more of a focus on humane euthanasia,” she said.
“It may if there are less places in the pool to take on the re-homing, so by the RSPCA contracting, the other organisations may not be able to pick up the difference, that possibly it may lead to more euthanasia of animals.”
David Peters from Dogs Homes of Tasmania said the more people who are involved in animal welfare, the better.
“If the RSPCA is no longer able to look after dogs, it would put more pressure on us,” he said.
Mr Peters hoped councils would not put down more animals because of the changes.
RSPCA general manager Peter West said the group wanted to shed responsibility for animal management, pest control and dealing with stray animals.
“We’ve sort of become the place that fixes all those problems, when really those problems are of local government or State Government,” he said.
We’ve sort of become the place that fixes all those problems, when really those problems are of local government or state government
RSPCA Tasmania General Manager Peter West
“So what we’re doing now is pushing back a bit to say you guys need to handle animal management, you guys need to handle pest control, we’ll certainly be there to help animals in need but that’s not our core function.”
The group has already been talking to local councils and the State Government to reduce the number of animals it must care for.
Mr West said the RSPCA in Tasmania could no longer do it all and the Department of Primary Industries needed to take over investigations of big animal cruelty cases.
“Every time we take in an animal we have to re-home it, there’s de-sexing to happen, there’s all the vaccinations, or if an animal comes in and its injured and not doing well and we have to euthanase it,” he said.
“All of these things are a cost to the society and we have to find those costs somewhere.”
Councils had in the past worked with the RSPCA to roll out responsible pet ownership programs, including free micro-chipping and de-sexing in a bid to curb the number of feral cats and dogs.
The RSPCA expected it would take about 12 months to turn around its finances.
Topics: animal-welfare, tas
31 Tuesday Mar 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Animal welfare groups and the state’s chief animal welfare enforcer, RSPCA NSW, are at loggerheads over the prosecution of animal cruelty cases.Aussie Farms and Animal Liberation NSW have called on RSPCA NSW to relinquish its role as a prosecutor under the state’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. source: Sydney Morning Herald 15/12/2014
RSPCA NSW has rejected any suggestion that it should lose its powers of prosecution. The organisation has previously admitted that it is unable to effectively regulate the state’s puppy farms under current funding arrangements.
It costs RSPCA NSW $43 million a year to operate. Less than 1 per cent, or $424,000, of those operational costs come from the state government. The rest is made up by donations, fund-raising and payouts from animal cruelty cases.
____________________________________________________________
The RSPCA has vast sums set aside and benefits from a charitable persona that leverages money from well meaning donors.
Nationally, the RSPCA employs over 100 Inspectors throughout the country. There is no specific qualification or course completion that leads to a role in the Inspectorate.
The RSPCA Prosecutions Division has been very benevolent to the legal team of Board Director/Barristers. While they sit on the RSPCA Board and drag out prosecution cases up to hundreds and millions of dollars, the taxpayers of NSW appear to get very little return for the benefit of their endorsement.
Botched prosecutions and poorly formed briefs has meant that thousands of dollars are thrown away and valuable court time taken up. Wallys Piggery is just one example.
However, the Board Director/Barrister/Prosecutor turns up in court for these prolonged charades of justice and gets paid for every appearance.
The DPP would not handle the cases the way the BoardDirector/Barrister/Prosector does. They would ensure that every t is crossed before even embarking on the costly excercise.
And the DPP does not do it for private financial gain. While they can seek costs – those costs go to the State- not to the Prosectors Firm.
An excert from the Wooler Review on the UK RSPCA and its role in prosecutions in Sept 2014 states:
The current role of the RSPCA has evolved largely outside the mainstream criminal justice
system and owes more to history than any strategy. The unstructured and haphazard
environment within which the RSPCA operates now means that the RSPCA role is poorly
defined and its relationships with the public bodies with whom its work overlaps are unclear. Despite this and extensive criticism in the media and elsewhere, there can be no doubt that
the RSPCA makes a major contribution and brings expertise that is too valuable to be lost. It
also continues to enjoy substantial public support. Nonetheless, there are significant
weaknesses. In particular, its prosecution role has failed to develop to accord with
contemporary expectations of transparency and accountability – issues recognised by my
terms of reference. It therefore needs to adapt.
My report therefore presents challenges not only to the RSPCA but also to government and
the public authorities who share the responsibility for animal welfare. There is at present an undue readiness on their part to opt out of tackling animal welfare issues on the basis that the RSPCA will then pick up the task – and the cost. Its main recommendations propose that the Society seeks to re-position itself so as to achieve a close and more structured
relationship with government and the other relevant public authorities on the basis that its
role is formalised within a framework that provides the necessary accountability and
transparency – with the Society being afforded the status and authority it needs to discharge
an enforcement role in a manner that conforms with 21st century expectations. Such
partnership would be consistent with arrangements found in other sectors and would not compromise the Society’s status as an independent charity.http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf
..
In its final summation the report draws the conclusion
The level of costs is important for three reasons:
• first, the RSPCA needs to be confident that it is receiving best value for money. That is especially important for a charity that is discharging a function that would ordinarily be funded out of the public purse;
• second, the Code for Crown Prosecutors identifies as one of the factors relevant to consideration of the public interest whether a prosecution would be a proportionate response. Decisions should not be taken on the basis of costs alone but they are a relevant factor.
• Third, the level of costs incurred by the RSPCA is seen as higher than those of other prosecutors for comparable cases and many consider that the level of prosecution costs has the potential to impact adversely on the
overall fairness of proceedings.
The level of claims for costs by the RSPCA has attracted comment from the senior judiciary as well as legal practitioners who described the resultant pressure on defendants to plead guilty – especially those who do not qualify for legal aid and, if acquitted, may only recover costs on a legal aid basis, thus being heavily out of pocket. Such comments seem mainly based on the fact that animal welfare offences are universally summary only and fall to be equated in terms of gravity with the more routine work of the magistrates’ courts such as domestic violence, wounding and assault as well as violent and/or aggressive public disorder. The use of the scale approach merely emphasises the difference as regards contested cases.
Its about time that the Politicians of NSW, and Australia for that matter reads the report and sets in place an equitable process that achieves the outcomes athat are desired.
And that is not lining the pockets of the Barrister/Board Member/Prosecutor.
30 Monday Mar 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inIn NSW the RSPCA seems to have open slather courtesy of the NSW Liberal Government under the rubber stamping hand of Katrina Hodgkinson.
There are simply no provisions for the Minister to table these complaints in the House of Parliament of NSW. Hence the members are literally kept in the dark on the aberrations that this out of control organisation is inflicting on the constituents.
Who would be so stupid to lodge a complaint against these vexatious bullies!
Unlike any other organisation, it has an open book to intimidate and prosecute, engage in phone tapping, as well as launching media campaigns designed to further their own cause, with little head to the innocent farmers and allied industries.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag when it comes to reining in the far reaching powers of the RSPCA.
Its about time that the NSW Parliament takes the ‘bull” by the horns and gets some sanity and transparency to this profit hungry organisation.
___________________________________________________________________
The enforcement agencies of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act) can investigate cruelty to an animal. The enforcement agencies are:
The Department of Primary Industries does not have powers of enforcement under the Act.
The aim of the enforcement agencies is to ensure that cruelty to animals is prevented and the welfare of animals is promoted. While carrying out these duties, enforcement officers are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner while meeting the objectives of the Act in a way which is an appropriate exercise of their powers.
In most cases, complaints can be resolved by raising them with the Inspector directly. By simply and clearly explaining why you are complaining and giving the Inspector a chance to respond, you may be able to resolve the issue. If this is unsuccessful, you should escalate your complaint.
If you would like to complain about a NSW Police officer involved in an animal cruelty matter; please contact the NSW Police Customer Assistance Unit on 1800 622 571, or visit your local police station. Further information about making a complaint is also available from the NSW Police website at: www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/additional_services/complain_about_a_police_officer
If you would like to complain about an RSPCA Inspector involved in an animal cruelty matter, please contact the Chief Inspector of the RSPCA NSW in writing at inspectors@rspcansw.org.au or at PO Box 34, Yagoona NSW 2199.
In all complaints to the Chief Inspector, you should include:
The Chief Inspector will endeavour to respond to your complaint within 28 days.
If you would like to complain about an Animal Welfare League Inspector involved in an animal cruelty matter, please contact the Chief Inspector of the Animal Welfare League NSW in writing at inspectors@awlnsw.com.au, or at PO Box K1086, Haymarket NSW 1240.
In all complaints to the Chief Inspector, you should include:
The Chief Inspector will endeavour to respond to your complaint within 28 days.
Please note that as ‘approved charitable organisations’ under the Act, the RSPCA NSW and the Animal Welfare League NSW must provide the Minister for Primary Industries with details of any complaints received by the organisation in relation to its activities under the Act, including details as to the resolution of those complaints and the disciplinary action taken against any person as a result of those complaints. This report must be provided on an annual basis.
Please note that complaints about matters which are or have been prosecuted may not receive a response if the nature of the complaint has or will be raised during the court process.
10 Wednesday Dec 2014
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
The Magistrate -Ms Tracey was critical of the RSPCA’s handling of the case, questioning why so much money – $55,000 had been spent on cats that were slated for destruction.
She said that, while Roberts’ neglect was “callous”, many of the cats were ill when she had first taken possession of them.
A PORT Gawler woman accused of keeping more than 100 cats in inhumane conditions has been convicted and ordered to pay $5000 compensation.
Kathy Roberts appeared in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court today charged with 59 counts of animal ill-treatment between February 4, 2010 and February 4, 2011.
The RSPCA had alleged its inspectors removed 79 cats from a cat boarding and breeding business and were forced to euthanase another 45.
It claimed Roberts failed to take reasonable steps to provide adequate food, water and living conditions.
It further claimed it had incurred costs of $15 a day per cat looking after the sick animals, and was therefore owed $55,800 by Roberts.
Today, Magistrate Joanne Tracey convicted Roberts – but ordered she pay just $5000 compensation.
Ms Tracey was critical of the RSPCA’s handling of the case, questioning why so much money had been spent on cats that were slated for destruction.
She said that, while Roberts’ neglect was “callous”, many of the cats were ill when she had first taken possession of them.
Ms Tracey banned Roberts from owning any more cats but said she could keep the 12 geriatric felines she was currently caring for “under RSPCA supervision”.
Outside court, an RSPCA spokesperson said the organisation would consider lodging an appeal.
29 Sunday Jun 2014
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Second MP calls for clarity on animal Act
JENNY BARTLETT
19 Jun, 2014 02:00 AM
I am worried that this end of the process is muddy
Shooters and Fishers MP Rick Mazza wants confirmation from the Department of Agriculture and Food and the RSPCA as to which agency is responsible for administration of the Animal Welfare Act.
Agriculture and Food Minister Ken Baston said he was looking at a review into the administration of the AWA 2002 to improve the effectiveness of animal welfare across WA.
In the meantime, he said RSPCA representatives could not prosecute unless they had been trained as general inspectors through DAFWA under the Act.
“Proceedings for an offence under the AWA 2002 may be commenced by the director general of DAFWA, a DAFWA officer authorised by the director general, or an inspector appointed under the AWA 2002 (who may be employed by the RSPCA),” he said.
“A general inspector employed by the RSPCA has the power to commence proceedings for offences, not the RSPCA.
“DAFWA has oversight only of prosecutions commenced by general inspectors employed by DAFWA, the director general of DAFWA or an officer of DAFWA that is authorised by the director general.”
The RSPCA responded to the criticism and backed up its inspectors, saying there has been no incident in recent years where a RSPCA inspector acted beyond their powers.
RSPCA chief executive officer David van Ooran said RSPCA inspectors, including those in regional WA, had strong and productive relationships with local stakeholders, including shires, police, veterinarians, farmers, industry and the community.
He confirmed RSPCA inspectors required a certificate four in government compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and/or a certificate four in investigations.
“(This gives inspectors) powers under the act to enter, seize and enforce direction notices,” Mr van Ooran said.
He said RSPCA inspectors were appointed by DAFWA, which was responsible for the administration of the Act.
The RSPCA does not have the power to execute prosecutions in its own name, but Mr van Ooran said individual general inspectors did.
“DAFWA does not have involvement in each prosecution but RSPCA is in regular communications with DAFWA in relation to its compliance and enforcement work under the AWA 2002,” he said.
“Prosecution is a last resort in many cases.
“Inspectors regularly liaise with all parties concerned and issue direction notices to fix welfare issues.”
Mr van Ooran invited Mr Mazza to spend a day on the road with an RSPCA inspector.
Jenny Bartlett is a wool writer for Farm Weekly
Email: jenny.bartlett@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/farmweekly
READER COMMENTS
Dan T
20/06/2014 8:40:31 AM, on Farm Weekly
The RSPCA inspectors I know are hard working, professional people with common sense. Rick Mazza and Paul Brown are the ideological ones here. Maybe they should learn a bit more from the people on the ground before they go around trashing the name of a respectable organisation that provides so much to WA.
View all recent article comments
BOBO
20/06/2014 4:12:22 PM, on Farm Weekly
“Trashing the name of a respectable organisation”???? Where was this in the report? Rick asked for clarification of power – nothing more.
wafarmer
20/06/2014 4:35:19 PM, on Farm Weekly
Gee, Dan T, that’s a bit harsh and while we are talking ideological I think you will find that the RSPCA has lost a lot of respect among a lot of animal protection and support groups, never mind the farming community. I am quite sure the RSPCA inspectors you know are hard working, professional people with common sense as are the people I know within agriculture and animal breeding and support organizations. Rick Mazza and Paul Brown as far as I can see were more calling for a more professional approach with recognizable qualifications instead of the obviously ad hoc arrangement in place now.
peter
20/06/2014 5:12:22 PM, on Farm Weekly
pretty big call, dan t, ric is from the ground do your checks before putting your finger to pad.
Steve L
23/06/2014 7:42:47 AM, on Farm Weekly
Dan T. Messrs Mazza and Brown are not “trashing” the name of RSPCA – these are serious questions about the authority of the organisation which must be answered.
Homer/JB
23/06/2014 4:14:06 PM, on Farm Weekly
The RSPCA has no shortage of questions to answer with regard to the way it operates. In more than one instance its actions/attitudes seem similar to animal welfare extremists.
22 Sunday Jun 2014
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
A COURT case over alleged sickening cruelty at Warrnambools May Racing Carnival has collapsed after leading horse veterinarians rubbished the evidence of an RSPCA expert witness.
The RSPCA had charged Seymour man Andrew Duff with one count of animal cruelty after he allegedly dragged a horse with a shattered hind leg from the track during the Galleywood Hurdle in 2010.
The horse, Sirroceon Storm, fell soon after the race began, breaking its leg so badly it caused the limb to swing wildly around, the organisation said.
The RSPCA a long time anti-jumps racing crusader said Mr Duff caused unreasonable pain and suffering when he moved the horse, and that it should have been euthanised where it collapsed on the track.
The RSPCA held Mr Duff, 46, of Whiteheads Creek, solely responsible, choosing not to pursue higher-ranking RVL officials or Warrnambool Racing Club executives.
Professor Paul McGreevy, a veterinary ethologist at the University of Sydney, said Mr Duffs actions were unnecessary, with the jockey having effectively restrained the horse from a flight response by making it walk in a tight circle around him.
The rest of the field, which was about to thunder by, could have been diverted around the wounded animal � which was eventually put down or the race stopped, Professor McGreevy said.
Moving a horse with such a catastrophic injury is likely to have caused unreasonable pain or suffering because it would have prompted the horse to attempt to bear weight through the fracture site, he said. Horses in extremis can be moved, for example, by dragging, but that does not mean moving them is humane.
However, three leading equine vets who prepared reports free of charge for Mr Duffs counsel, Damien McAloon, SC, because they considered the RSPCAs actions a great injustice discredited Professor McGreevys evidence.
They blasted the RSPCAs prosecution brief as curious, obsessive, lacking serious first-hand experience of handling injured or distressed horses and a philosophical or political intrusion.
Last Friday in the Warrnambool Magistrates Court the count of animal cruelty against Mr Duff was dropped.
All defending veterinarians said the attendant risked his life to prevent a further catastrophic accident when the rest of the field passed the injured horse, and that it would have been impossible to forcibly move the wounded animal that weighed about half a tonne.
The concept that a 80-90 kilogram man could drag or pull an unwilling horse is patently absurd, veterinarian of 40 years Paul Kavenagh said.
It would appear to me with 40 years experience that these accusations have been made by persons with limited or no serious first-hand experience of handling injured or distressed horses.
Another leading equine surgeon, Glenn Robertson-Smith, said in some cases where horses are injured they want to move, and allowing that facilitated control.
In my assessment Mr Duff did a good job and was at significant risk to himself trying to control an agitated, unbalanced racehorse with a serious fracture, he said.
If Mr Duff had been found guilty he could have faced 12 months jail or a $14,000 fine, and banned from owning an animal for 10 years.
By PATRICK BARLEY AND JARED LYNCH, Warnambool Standard
Source: http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=3381
11 Wednesday Jun 2014
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Social Media is the tool that can be used to facilitate a remedy to the increasing problem of the overload. By establishing a Lost & Found Animals Facebook for each council region, the registered carers would be able to quickly assist in the restoration of the animals. Such a tool would also allow people to register their needs such as surrender, rehoming etc.
There are many passionate people in the community who can achieve the goal of a viable Animal Welfare Society without the RSPCA enjoying all awareness in their quest for funding.
Most councils have an Animal Committee and vets need to be on that committee to have input with the making of policies .The Department would like Council and veterinary practices to develop closer ties—-vets and staff becoming approved premises and approved persons.
The following is an extract from the Veterinary Practitioners Board OF NEW SOUTH WALES website.
http://boardtalk.vpb.nsw.gov.au/page/Stray_Dogs_and_Cats.
The non injured cat and dog are the legal responsibility of Local Government and are not the responsibility of vets. Consequently if the non injured `stray’ is surrendered by a member of the public to a vet, the vet needs to contact the council pound or equivalent and arrange for the animal to be transferred as soon as practical [unless mutually agreeable arrangements have been made eg a vet saying I will keep it overnight or over the weekend at a pre negotiated fee for instance.]
The Companion Animal Act [and this is not an Act the Board works with] does not spell out who is responsible for the movement of the dog/cat to the pound but the Guidelines 2010 speak of the vet `making arrangements for movement.’ No council has a right to refuse to accept a stray animal. Local councils have a legal obligation to keep the animal for 7 days if not microchipped and 14 days if chipped.
If the vet is an approved person under section 62A and therefore authorised to have access to the Register, they should search the Register and make any necessary enquiries to find out who the owner of the animal is and reunite the animal with its owner. Vets who are not `approved persons’ can apply to the dept of local Government to become an approved person.
Under the Companion Animals Act 1998 any dog which is in a place (other than where it is ordinarily kept) unaccompanied by a responsible person is a “stray”. Any person (including a council officer) may seize a stray dog in the following circumstances as provided under the Act:
Unlike dogs, cats are allowed to roam public places and onto private property.
Under the Companion Animals Act 1998 a cat may only be seized in the following circumstances:
A person who seizes a dog or cat under the Companion Animals Act must cause it to be delivered as soon as possible to its owner (if the owner can be identified) or to the council pound or other authorised council officer (eg ranger) (section 62). A person who does not comply with this is guilty of an offence and may be liable for a penalty of up to $2200. Strictly speaking, delivering an uninjured animal seized under the Companion Animals Act to a vet is an offence. However, it is acknowledged that in practice many people deliver animals to their local vet surgery because it is not practicable for them to deliver the animal to a pound (eg they can walk to the vet and may not have a car to transport the animal to the pound). In this circumstance, a vet may choose not to accept the animal (which is, strictly speaking, complying with the Companion Animals Act) and advise the person to call the council ranger or take it to the council pound. If the vet does choose to accept the animal, they do so in the same context as “any person” under the Act, and must return the animal to its owner or contact the council as soon as possible. Vets should not undertake to hold the animal and re-house it themselves – there is no legal basis for the vet to give the animal to a new owner and if the original owner should come forward at some future time a vet may find themselves subject to civil legal action.
Any animal which is injured is not seized under the Companion Animals Act but under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA). POCTA provides that where a cat or dog has been injured in a vehicle accident, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that it receives appropriate treatment to alleviate pain. The driver must also, as soon as practicable, inform the owner of the animal, or an officer of the RSPCA, AWL or a police officer (section 14)
In any circumstance where an animal is injured (for example, as the result of an attack by another animal), if a person seizes or takes charge of the animal, that person is responsible for ensuring that the animal receives any necessary veterinary treatment (section 5(3)). Where an animal is so severely injured that a vet takes possession of the animal to euthanase it, the vet may recover from the owner of the animal the reasonable costs incurred in euthanasing the animal (section 26A).
If the owner for an injured animal cannot be located, under the Companion Animals Act, the council should be notified. Once the animal’s condition is stabilised and it no longer requires veterinary supervision, the animal should be transferred to the council pound. Council is not liable for any costs of treatment up to this point in time (unless of course it was council who delivered the injured animal to the vet in the first place). Nor is council under any obligation to inform the vet of the owner’s details if they succeed in locating the owner (in fact this could be a breach of privacy legislation). As a courtesy council could inform the owner that the animal was treated by a particular vet and there are outstanding costs – but there’s no obligation to do so; and if the owner chooses to ignore this information there’s nothing more a council can do.
The Companion Animals Act requires a council to accept into the pound any cat or dog which is delivered to the pound or other authorised person of the council (such as a ranger). However, the Act does not require a council to collect a “stray” animal from any public or private place. Some councils do provide this as an additional service to their community, others do not. It is a discretionary matter for the particular council to decide. Whether an individual council provides a “pick up” service for animals, and if so, in what circumstances, should be indicated in a formally adopted council management plan (this may be a specific animal management plan or be part of an environmental management plan or council’s general management plan). Councils should ensure that local vets, animal welfare organisations and other relevant groups are informed of what is in their plan.
The Companion Animals Act does not require a council to have an “after hours” service for accepting cats and dogs. Again, this is a discretionary matter for council to determine. However, the majority of local councils do have some form of general “after hours” contact for their rangers. What “after hours” arrangements council has, and when and how they operate, again should be included in a council management plan. Councils should ensure that local vets, animal welfare organisations and other relevant groups are informed of what is in their plan.
For more information go to;
Department of Premier and Cabinet and then Division of Local Government and search for Companion Animals
Other contacts for the Division of Local Government are
Email address pets@dlg.nsw.gov.au
Telephone (0)2 4428 4181 and Fax (0)2 4428 4199
Postal: Locked Bag 3015, Nowra, NSW 2541 Australia
[1] Do the extent of the injuries necessitate euthanasia?
If so, we would recommend keeping full records including a description of the animal as well as details of the illness/wounds.
Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, a veterinary practitioner has special powers
Powers of veterinary practitioners to destroy animals
26AA Powers of veterinary practitioners to destroy animals
(1) Where, in the opinion of a veterinary practitioner:
(a) an animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive, and
(b) the animal is not about to be destroyed, or is about to be destroyed in a manner that will inflict unnecessary pain upon the animal, the veterinary practitioner may:
(c) take possession of the animal,
(d) remove the animal to such place as the veterinary practitioner thinks fit, and
(e) destroy the animal, or cause it to be destroyed, in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain.
(2) The reasonable costs incurred by a veterinary practitioner in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the veterinary practitioner by subsection (1) in respect of an animal may be recovered from the owner of the animal as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction by the veterinary practitioner.
While under the Veterinary Practice Regulation 2006; Code of Conduct Veterinary Practice Regulation 2006 Schedule 2
2 Welfare of animals must be considered
A veterinary practitioner must at all times consider the welfare of animals when practising veterinary science.
3 No refusal of pain relief
(1) A veterinary practitioner must not refuse to provide relief of pain or suffering to an animal that is in his or her presence.
(2) In this clause, relief, in relation to pain or suffering, means:
(a) first aid treatment, or
(b) timely referral to another veterinary practitioner, or
(c) euthanasia as appropriate.
2] Can the animal be treated for the illness/ wounds and then sent to the council pound/facility?
The costs for this would be borne by the vet unless negotiated before hand with the local council.
3] While no one would expect a vet to for instance, plate a fractured femur of a stray dog ,ask yourself if the dog/cat could be kept comfortable for a couple of days with conservative treatment giving the owner a chance to claim the animal. An example would be a very well groomed and cared for dog with a suspected fracture which could be managed with a splint for a day or so would be quite different from the cat which has a fracture but is dramatically under weight with advanced dental disease and signs of chronic ill health perhaps.
At the end of the day a veterinarian is simply the best person to decide on welfare issues for the animal.
Regarding care overnight or on weekends when councils are shut and associated financial issues such as payment for medications….discussions need to take place with your local council. Most councils have an Animal Committee and vets need to be on that committee to have input with the making of policies .The Department would like Council and veterinary practices to develop closer ties—-vets and staff becoming approved premises and approved persons.
If you are interested then call 02-4428 4181 0r email pets@dlg.nsw.gov.au
02 Monday Jun 2014
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
A sign of a malfunctioning organisation..
Steve Colemane CEO of the RSPCA NSW announced its intention to close the branch at Katoomba and ‘lease’ out the premises.
This has outraged the community of the Blue Mountains and in response have raised a petition. The content of the petition outlines the fact that the RSPCA has strayed way too far from its charter.
The high admin salaries, the high rents for corporate headquarters is rubbing thin the support at the hardworking grass roots.
Your intention to close the Blue Mountains RSPCA animal shelter is totally without compassion for animals & is an insult to the people of this community who worked so hard & gave so much to enable the purchase of the land & the building of the shelter.
People bequeathed their homes, large amounts of cash were given & many thousands of residents gave continual donations, all in the belief that this Branch would build a facility which would forever provide shelter for animals in need.
We were an autonomous Branch, acting under the auspices of the RSPCA and became the most successful Branch in NSW with almost 1000 members and a continual income from the two retail shops we purchased in Springwood & Katoomba, we used that income to pay all our outgoings, including wages for our shelter staff.
As a result of our success RSPCA NSW became ever keener to gain control of the Blue Mountains Branch and in 2002 you succeeded, but it wasn’t long before you closed & sold our two fund raising shops, both of which had been used as the front line for keeping the public aware of our shelter.
If RSPCA NSW is unable or unwilling to continue managing this shelter then it should be returned to the control of the Blue Mountains Branch. The action you are considering is morally reprehensible & on behalf of the animals & this community we implore you to reconsider your decision.
PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT Help to save the Blue Mountains Animal Shelter by signing this petition. This Branch purchased the 11 acre site in Katoomba in 1980, it cost us $35,000.00, if it is sold there is no way we could ever afford to purchase land or build another shelter at today’s prices. It is imperative that our animals don’t lose their shelter to prop up the finances of RSPCA NSW. Selling assets does not create cash flow.
The comment by RSPCA NSW CEO Steve Coleman, that the Blue Mountains shelter is in close proximity to Sydney & Orange is ridiculous, one of the reasons why this shelter was needed was because of the distance between shelters. Not everyone owns a vehicle or can afford petrol to travel long distances and animals are not permitted on public transport
.Before we built this shelter unwanted dogs & litters of pups & kittens were continually dumped in the bush and many unwanted dogs were either taken to the local council pound to spend 7 miserable days before being euthanased, or were turned out onto the street where they ran in packs searching for food. Many people who no longer want their animal won’t go on a 2 hour drive to take it to a place of safety.
I could write a book on the reasons why an animal shelter was needed in the Blue Mountains in 1980. The reasons will not have changed. Let us hope that the current CEO & Directors of RSPCA NSW have not reached the point of just running a business.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
`Some comments from petitions reveal the angst of people
This is a real slap in the face for the hard working supporters and staff at the Katoomba shelter. The RSPCA should be working with local communities and councils to assist them to re-home animals locally, not abandoning them. Each community should be responsible for it’s own neglected animals. I am concerned that the RSPCA, which I currently support, is becoming increasingly bureaucratic so far as working with local animal welfare groups goes. It is also hard to justify a CEO salary of $150k a year when key operations such as shelters are being closed. This may be a difficult job, but probably no more so than what some of the staff and volunteers have to put up with. RSPCA is a charity, and their needs to be a high degree of altruism at the top.
The venerable ‘Mr Oxford’ defines proximity as “Nearness, in space, time etc”. Mr Coleman apparently has a unique view of the use of this word. Yagoona to Katoomba 93km and Katoomba to Orange 153km. Also interesting that the closure comes shortly after a charity drive that elicited a substantial amount of money from the local community. We are not all elephants but we don’t forget.
Katoomba RSPCA to close
By Jennie Curtin
May 28, 2014, midnight
Katoomba’s animal shelter and pound will be closed.
The RSPCA told staff last week they had just six months of work before the doors were permanently shut.
Eight staff will be made redundant unless they can find positions within the organisation at other shelters.
Staff were shocked at the news, which came out of the blue.
The CEO of RSPCA NSW, Steve Coleman, said he had the “unfortunate job of advising the staff and volunteers last Wednesday that it was identified as one of our operations that is to be redundant”.
He said financial circumstances meant the RSPCA could not continue to sustain the Mort Street facility.
“Ordinarily charities have been relatively well supported by the community in tough times but it is now starting to impact on charities like the RSPCA,” he said. “We just had to make some really tough decisions now… or face a black hole in two years’ time.”
The shelter takes in surrendered, abandoned, injured, neglected and stray animals. It has found new homes for more than 1300 animals over the years and its office wall is lined with photos and letters from people grateful for the happiness their new pets have brought to their lives.
Mr Coleman said the Blue Mountains branch would continue with an online presence and he hoped animals could be fostered or adopted that way.
He said Katoomba was to be axed because of its “proximity” to other shelters, notably Yagoona and Orange, and because of an increase in vehicles driving through the Mountains which would be available to transport animals to new homes or other facilities.
“It is also a very active branch and we are very confident we can still fly the flag,” Mr Coleman said.
He hoped the shelter’s volunteers would continue to work with the RSPCA.
Mr Coleman said the RSPCA owned the premises and would be interested in leasing it out for other ventures.
The RSPCA is also closing its Dubbo facility and the animal adoptions component at Tweed Heads
The extent of the community concern has also seen the launch of a Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Our-Blue-Mountains-RSPCA-Shelter/1421498421460569
….I hope this reaches everyone. The RSPCA has been for me the most trusted charity in the entire country and now for some reason its CEO has bethought himself to landscape Yagoona, and `sell’ a property the RSPCA has morally on borrowed. l
…..And the idea that we have nearby shelters at Orange and Yagoona!!! This whole thing is just madness. But the land will fetch a good price for a development company to build a luxury resort!
I don’t understand how the RSPCA could sell it off knowing full well that people have donated huge sums of money, bequeathed their own homes, and I’m wondering why there isn’t some aknowledgement of this and it’s like stealing money from folk and keeping it for themselves. It’s entirely immoral and I wish that it was illegal. I’m certain that when people donated in good faith, they never thought that this would happen. There should have been something legal drawn up stating that if the RSPCA accepts the huge sums of money plus money from the sale of peole’s homes, that upon the sale of the shelter, that the money donated is returned to the Blue Mountains community with interest so that another piece of land can be purchased and shelter built. I am not versed in real estate law, wills etc so apologies for this and I hope that you can understand my thoughts.