Phone: (02) 4787 8188
Fax: (02) 4787 9116
Email:  megalong@megalongcc.com.au

Office Hours 8am to 5.30pm

The RSPCA   EXPERIENCE

Has bureaucracy in NSW got out of control?

NEWS, NEWS,  NEWS..  We were forced  to plead guilty to avoid ending up like others who ended up with horrendous legal bills,  that would send us bankrupt.  With the full force of the RSPCA legal gurus, legal extortion is a term that comes to mind .

We pleaded guilty for horses that were not lame, for horses that had been wormed!!!  We were found guilty for acts of having horses that had lost a shoe, that looked lame, that had a bowed tendon, two that  had navicular disease.  We were found guilty because we were forced by the high costs of the legal system not to be able to defend ourselves! We had to plead guilty for horses that were  wormed, which we had paid for the drench and had  administered.  We had to tell a lie and plead guilty to avoid the legal bills!

We had a magistrate chastise us for not looking after our horses, all the while not being able to tell him we had done it - why because we were forced to pleaded guilty to avoid the RSPCA bringing down their full force of the legal army on us just to get a win! They were getting ready to fly one of their vets in from Sth Australia - sounds like a familiar ploy? They  have a track record of running up legal bills to horrendous levels.  Then they threaten to apply to have you prohibited to have animals! So what choice do you have? Plead guilty to something that didn't happen!, Plead guilty to worming that was done! Plead guilty to horses that were not lame!

We had done what they wanted, but they must have wanted more. Who knows why and what for. And who won?

Certainly not the horses who were put down or sent back to the knackery.

Certainly not the lovely old horse were put down because he had navicular disease. 

Certainly not the  horse was sent to knackery because she had a bowed tendon.

Certainly not us who had put up with 9 visits in 2  years "in the interest of the horses"

Certainly not the NSW Court system who has had their time and resources tied up with the matter at taxpayers expense.

Who won. $11,000 to RSPCA layers, $20,000 to RSPCA appointed vets, $15,000 in fines for  12 horses to who??? $10,000 in fees to defending the case which actually turned into pleading guilty.

This is a lesson on  bureaucracy going mad in NSW.  It is a blatant case of small defenseless people being picked upon by the powers above.  A good behaviour bond and reporting to the RSPCA every 3 months.

Now we have to rake up $56,000 from somewhere in these tough economic times.

The magistrate made a pertinent point.  Business owners need a mind jolting reminder. Corporations who earns a living from animals is made to be aware of the sharp hand of the law’.  That means any horse related business - be it a stud,  an equestrian centre, a horse riding venue, anyone who works with horses can be inflicted with the same  ramifications. Don't think that worming a horse is enough. The RSPCA  come onto your property do the blood tests and charge you - despite doing the drenching the next day. 

And it is not a situation being an obvious case of neglect.  It is one of a subjective nature. It falls within the parameter of the interpretation. The clause in the Act has some very, very grey areas.  It is not good enough to find out how  many shades of grey it really has when standing in front of a magistrate.

What is the problem of clear cut laws that people can adhere to?  What is wrong with making the regulations so that people don't have to have an army of layers and the full might of the NSW judicial system to let you  conduct your business within the parameters. 

Why should we be forced to plead guilty!

When a business gets an order and complied, what is to be gained by 12 months later taking you to court?  who wins....we all know who won what.

You end up mentally battered and bruised., financially destroyed.  The RSPCA lawyers got their job done. they ended up with a pay check. The "Special Constables, the RSPCA inspectors, they get their weekly pay check. They are the  ones with the highest power in the land.. Do they loose sleep over the horses they ordered to their death- no! Do they have the interest of the horses in mind - no they are dead now!- For what - TV shows, egos, press coverage - who knows.

We were reprimanded for not exercising due diligence in care for livestock in the course of business.  We pleaded guilty for horses that were not lame - "The RSPCA Vet said -she thought they looked lame"!. We pleaded guilty for "failing to worm our horses" yet they knew we had - they saw the invoices for the drench, saw the records! Copies of the they invoices are on the Web to prove we did that.

We could not stand and shout- it’s wrong - we did not do that!.  We had been forced to plead guilty - we were not allowed to say one single word in our defense - or in the defense of our horses.

Was the "raids" justified? The  statement  by RSPCA NSW chief inspector David Shannessy  "  Today's result confirms that companies who profit from the use of animals have obligations to ensure that they are appropriately cared for and when veterinary treatment is required, this treatment is provided,"  confirms that the RSPCA will do anything to get results.  Making people plead guilty to 38 charges of not worming horses, when they know darn right that they had,  is an inexcusable abuse of their power.

That's the system.

The NSW Government’s Animal Welfare Act with the RSPCA radical implementation, has been launched with  an unprecedented series of charges against our venue for lameness AND a ‘moderate’ worm count in 13 of our 100 horses.   Yet  despite the normal worming schedule being underway that very day 26/9/2007, 12 months later on 17^th Sept 2008- 13 charges have been laid against the proprietor for “failing to provide veterinary care”. Our concern is that 9 visits in 2 years  constitutes overzealousness and actions beyond the call of duty.

We believe that we are not guilty of any acts of cruelty and only guilty of having thin horses that were bought from Camden Sales yard to stop them going to knackery during the drought and were trying to find homes for them.          The Inspectors not only got the horses wrong, breached us for a lame horse that had thrown a shoe, “thought a horse looked lame” and slammed 6 counts of breaches for our horses having a moderate worm burden.  Our horses are wormed every 3 months, shod every 6-8 weeks, left in pastures to graze and grow old – not sent off to the knackery, then hand fed when they have no teeth.

This now has set a precedence that any inspector can come onto your property without you knowing, take a blood sample and send you the bills, then take you to court 12 months later on trumped up charges to justify their action.

First Inspection

On 6th December, 2006,  RSPCA Inspector Lisa Maclean arrived at the property after a complaint by an ex-staff  member  about horses being thin. I  suggested that the Inspector take a drive with me over the property to look at all the horses. I drew the Inspector's  attention to the horses that had been purchased from the sales that were destined to go to the knackery.  I also wrote a letter requesting that the frivolous complainant be chastised for wasting the RSPCA time and resources that the public were contributing to.

2nd Inspection

On Tuesday 4^th September 2007,  an other  NSW RSPCA Inspector Courtney Milton arrived at our  property with a complaint over thin horses  saying they were tired and that horses were being hidden away. 

I again encouraged Inspector Courtney Milton to accompany me on a tour of the whole property - 2000 acres,  to see not only the condition of the horses, but the property and its  feeding in its  pasture capacity as well.  This was in the end of winter and at the final stages of a severe drought. .

Initially I showed Inspector Courtney Milton a couple of horses that we had been hand feeding due to the age and coming in from the Camden Sales Yards.  I drew the Inspectors attention to our correspondence on 6th December 2006 that I had written in relation to vexatious complaints and the seemingly waste  of the money for the public  donations for the operations of the  RSPCA.

Subseqeuntly I took Inspector Courtney Milton all over the property and at the end of the inspection she pointed out a horse in one of our paddocks ( a Clydesdale called King)  and commented that I should be doing something to rectify the weight problem. I confirmed to her that as some horses had  been bought in from the Camden Sales Yard and some of the horses were not able to be ridden at all and would be going back to the sales yard unless we could find homes for them. Other horses are just been put there as they had come from the sales with weight problems  and that the country was in the middle of the worst drought in its history. 

 I also commented that the horses in question had picked up weight since our purchase. and had photographs to prove this.

 I indicated to Inspector Courtney that there were  4 thin and lame horses that were scheduled to go to the sales but the horse flu had embargoed all movements since 26^th August 2007.  One horse had been inspected by a potential owner, Buzz - but that person had then decided against taking the horse which was very aged and extremely lame.  

I had shown Inspector Courtney all our records  which indicate the use of the horses, their condition, the weights of the feeds given to them, the paddocks which they are housed and any vet call out sheets as well as their general sheets from the day we purchase them   We keep all our horse till old age and do not sent them off to knackery. 

3rd Inspection

On 26^th September 2007 to my surprise,  my staff informed me that again the RSPCA were at the entry to our Shenandoah property- two Inspectors as well as a Vet were there with a video camera about to undertake an inspection.  When I arrived that confirmed that they had total rights to enter the property and did not need my permission.  After they filmed me and notified me of both my rights and that anything I said would be used in a prosecution, I recounted that I was going to accompany them and that I was going have two staff members witness the inspection. Consequently I had my Farm Manager David Lane and Lisa – the senior horse guide accompany us.

I asked what Inspector Courtney was  trying to ascertain that warranted  a video camera to record the event for the propose of prosecution, and was advised that I did not have to accompany them.  I reassured them I had nothing to hide.

During the inspection on several occasions I asked why they were construing the horses which were thin and asking me questions which appeared to be vexatious.  I asked that the video tape record my concern as "to where this inspection was heading and why such provocative images were being taken"  I had my staff push the majority of horses into the picture so that their photos could not be singularly subjected to any  misrepresentation over the condition of the horses.

Towards the end of the inspection at around 3pm (which had started at 9.30am)  I queried why they concentrated and once again had filmed a horse that they had previously filmed and was known to be lame.(see Brandy)  

 I asked them what was the purpose of their questioning me as to why I did not know how many horses were on the property.  I also queried why it caused them such indignation during the filming as to the fact with them claiming I did not even know exactly how many horses were even on the property. I felt that I was being set up!

I responded that we have 4 properties that horses are moved sometimes daily  between them, and that I had 12 of my daughters horse here as Mudgee was in total drought and had no feed, that I even had horses over at my other property at Hartley.

The Inspectors then proceeded to my main property at Megalong Valley Farm with their three RSPCA vehicles and commenced photographing all my horses in the yard while at least 20 customers looked on as it was the middle of the School Holiday period.   We had two visitors from USA riding who were concerned as to whether they should even be riding.  

Sugar the Stock horse mare had  too much energy for the average rider, but kept close to Tilly the quieter mare. We put them both out to build up weight.  Subsequently earlier this year Sugar was swapped with one of the regions most respected riders for another horse -Frosty

Sugar  with friend Tilly - 2 charges laid on Sugar -lameness and worms

Watch the video of Sugar on Youtube and see that she is not lame- but we were charged!

SUGAR  4TH JANUARY 2008

WATCH THE VIDEO on Youtube and you can see she

Moose Horse no 19 - Charge : Worms

Moose is a very aged old Clydesdale, hard to get weight on him, even with 3 feeds a day. But he is a lot better than 12 months ago..

See Moose on YOU TUBE Old Horses love to eat

Garys Mare Horse no 11-Charge-Lameness

Garys Mare was purchased 10 years ago and always has had a bowed tendon. Sometimes she gets silly and runs in with "the mob"  and then she gets a little lame. But we try to keep her out the back. She does not get ridden at all, and really never did!

 Kiwi Horse no 19 - Charge: Worms

Kiwi was bought from the Sales Yard with another aged companion. It has taken a long time to get both these old horses into condition.

After spending 8 hours inspecting horses without a break, 7 horses were cited as they "appeared to be lame"  yet I told the Inspector in the first instance exactly what horses had hoof problems and why they were not used!

The result  a summons to appear to court 12 months later!

Case No  4 -Lameness caused by Navicular disease

Brandy the Bukskin bought at Camden Sales, (apparently was heavily sedated at the sale)- suffers from navicular disease- ie arthritis like condition in a small bone in the hoof. Is she ridden - no- does she wander over the property eating, grazing enjoying her life - yes! so why would we want to put her down or send her to the knackery?  If you want her - please let us know! otherwise RSPCA says we must eliminate her and her pain..

BEFORE

Brandy  at time of purchase

from Camden Sales Yards in March 2007

AFTER

Brandy at time of testing by Vet

in October 2007

Brandy before it was send back to Camden Salesyard-

FOUND GUILTY -NAVICULAR

King the Clydesdale horse which first caught the Inspectors attention-" you should be doing something about his weight - its not good enough!" . However he did not even rate a mention in the inspection! We are trying to get King's weight better and occasionally use him for riding to build up some muscle tone.

BEFORE

 King when arrived from Camden Sales Yards

in March 2007

AFTER

King at time of our Vets inspections 5th Oct 2007

Sugar  cited for lameness and worms.

Lucky - 1 charge laid -  Worms .

Lucky -the grey mare- not so lucky- she was sent to the sales and would have ended at the knackery as she is blind in one eye.

Poor Lucky is blind in one eye!

 Poor Lucky - not so lucky was sent back to the Salesyard

Alice Horse no 14 -Charge :  Lameness

Alice was viewed from a distance and had lost a shoe. Was not lame through any degenerative reason.

Alice the Bay Mare- Lost a shoe a couple of days prior to visit. It  was shod the following Monday and did some trail rides that afternoon.

Why  was a charge laid for a horse that a vet accompanying the RSPCA indicated "may" be lame?

A precedent now has been set in the Court of NSW. You can be charged over a horse loosing a shoe.

Ginger Horse no 12 --Charge: Lameness

Ginger was purchased over 10 years ago and has had Laminitis the entire time.  He is a lovely horse around children, good to pat, and never any trouble.  We have tried resting him for 2 years, all type of remedial shoeing, medications and nothing has worked. So we leave him out in the back paddocks to graze and simply enjoy his days. If the RSPCA feels that he needs to be put down - they have been advised they can come and do it.

Currently Ginger has moderate lameness and is not used for any riding whatsoever and leading a natural horse's life (except that he is drenched every 3 months)

Polish Horse no 18- Charge : Worms

The worming preparation had been ordered the day prior to the "surprise visit " of the RSPCA - we normally worm(drench) our horses at school holiday periods when we have more staff and all horses can be bought in. The horses were drenched in normal occurrence on Saturday 29th/30th September, 2007.

We drench every 3 months and rotate our drenches according to the seasons.  The horses were previously treated with IMAX Ivermectin on 29/30th June 200.

Prior to this they were treated with Panacur and prior to this for the previous year

Invoices for product over 12months are as follows:

28/02/2007 10 x  Imax Gold 100ml  $750

26/06/2007 12 x Imax Gold 100ml   $900

25/09/2007 12 x Imax Gold 100 ml  $924

17/01/2008  12x  Imax Gold 100ml  $924

I suffered a loss of trading for the day with 2 staff and myself being involved in this inspection till 4.30 in the afternoon.  Our venue was totally unattended during this time while we were absent from the reception area.

The outcome of the inspection was that Inspector Courtney relayed that there was 7 horses which she issued notices to have a vet attend as they appeared to be lame and that those horses should be treated for the lameness.  When I said that their lameness could not be treated and the only other alterative option was to have them put down and if that was the outcome that she desired.

I then requested that the RSPCA be in attendance when the horses were put down as I wished to have the media to also witness the process.   Of the horses that were “observed” to be lame the Inspector got the names wrong, observed from a distance, one having lost a shoe, causing the lameness, one being Shetland that could have incurred a stone bruise as they were not shod.

Two horses had been  directed to have  a vet “fix up”  one having a  bowed tendon and one having a navicular hoof , neither horses have not been ridden nor used in the past 5 years and are being pastured through affection, are in good health and sound. There is not remedy for these horses and they only remedy for them is to have them shot.

4th  Visit

On 11th October 2007 while I was in Sydney having  lunch with 4 people I received a call again from David Lane the manager who put Inspector Courtney Milton on the phone. She wanted my staff to go out an muster in all the horses. I responded that since they had the right of entry, and could go where ever they liked- they were quite welcome to go and look at whatever horses they wanted for however long they wanted. Inspector Milton responded that if I did not get my staff to bring in the horses that she would get a helicopter and quad bikes to do so, but she did not want to do so  as it would only stress the horses.

By this stage I was exhausted with frustration as to what the RSPCA really wanted. To threaten us with helicopters and officers charging around on quad bikes was too much. 

5th Inspection

By this stage I had given up and advised the RSPCA that they could put down as many horses as they wanted

After our VET had inspected the horses and ascertained that the horses lameness  could not be remedied  again we had another inspection. This time I requested that the severely lame horse Buzz be "put down" as I had  indicated needed doing. I also stated that the horse should not have even left the Sales Yard full of sedatives and why the RSPCA did not prevent this happening. 

I advised the RSPCA that they  had my permission to put down any  horses as they desired as we were getting nowhere and some of our horses are over 30 years of age and retired and they seemed to be "nitpicking".

 I do not take lightly sending off horses to a knackery, when they can  graze on pasture and they are of a friendly, good natured disposition. I still maintain their health with regular drenching  and being a horse lover believe that they are a entitled to be able to graze in a paddock.

My feed bills are over and above the normal, and all horses are treated by a Master Farrier. 

I had been given 7 days to do something with the “lame horses” and believed it  to be totally abhorrent to have to put down perfectly healthy horses.

It was 12 months later that I received the notices to appear in court on charges of "failing to provide Vet Treatment - Worms or Lameness" on 19th November 2008.

1. We had wormed the horses listed on the 29th September

2. Of the 7 horses listed for lameness  we had a Vet in on 10th October as it was still an embargoed period for the Equine Flue and Vets  were not permitted on properties unless it was a case of imminent death of a horse.

3. We had requested  written instructions  in order to comply with  fthe directives from RSPCA Head Office as the Inspector  had mistaken a number of horses.

The Current  Situation and ramifications for any Horse Owner in NSW

Effectively this  means  that now under the NSW Act that any animal owner in NSW can be subjected this happening. You face the prospect of an RSPCA Inspector working under the gamut of the NSW Laws coming onto your property, taking a blood sample and charging you for your animal having any amount of worms!

Outline of  Charges  laid on 17th September 2008 7 charges of Lameness,  6 Charges of Worms"

FAILING TO PROVIDE VETERINARY TREATMENT - Being the person in charge of an animal, to wit, did fail where it was necessary for the animal to be provided with veterinary treatment for a period of time to provide it with that treatment

 RSPCA FACT Sheet accompanying charges

We feel that there is no need for the RSPCA to engage in "raids" - on our property and it  is  unreasonable practise for them to  access themselves to a property that is constantly being used for filming work, when we have encouraged them  to inspect the entire property and  actually put them in our cars to do so. The property is quite large and is used for all types of commercial ventures and to access it without informing is an impost on those companies who pay leasing rights for exclusitivity.

This is a very arrogant  abuse of a NSW Government Law  and we  fail to understand nor appreciate as to what outcomes the RSPCA intended.

S n the first instance, unless an animal is in danger of dying or extreme pain or neglect.