How far will they go? And at What Cost!

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke (1729-97)


Just how far will the animal liberationist, the Australia Veterinary Association [AVA] and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA]?

Animal Liberationists

News in Australia 19 November 2003 told us of animal liberationists breaking Peta Sucksinto the Portland facility which was holding 70,000 sheep bound for the Middle East and due to depart 20 November 2003.. It was reported that animal liberationists broke into the facility and contaminated the feed and drinking water of the sheep by adding pig product to them.

Portland is situated in western Victoria. The Victorian law clearly states that feeding of animal product to sheep is prohibited and carries a maximum fine of AU$24,000.00 or 2 years in jail.

A 40 year old South Australian animal liberationist, Ralph Hahnheusser, has been charged with contamination of goods to cause economic loss and trespass. Ralph Hahnheusser is due to appear in Portland Magistrates Court on 7 January 2004.

However this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

In the news 25 September 2003 police clashed with animal liberationists to prevent a shipment of sheep to depart for Kuwait.

Are these people animal liberationists?

Or are they Animal Terrorists!

Animal Terrorist Organization are always crying out for donation to help the animals and because there are so many, it's difficult to know what to do and what not to do. To give you a guide, follow these three simple step:

  1. DO NOT make any donations unless you know exactly where your donation is going and what it is helping to fund. Animal Terrorist Organization wear many different coats, they can be found under many different umbrellas. Do not be fooled by their very clever marketing and sales pitches which will pull at your heart strings.
  2. DO buy blankets, food, worm tablets & the like and take it to your local animal shelter. You will know exactly who will get your donation.
  3. ASK questions before you empty your pockets of cash. Ask where your money is going. Ask what your money is supporting.


Australian Veterinary Association [AVA]

In a media release the AVA reported that 42 shrieks and whimpers were recorded from puppies during and after tail docking. We have addressed but a few parts of it here to give you a much truer picture on this issue.

Considering that puppies tails can be docked while they are asleep and not a single whimper or shriek to be heard, one begs the question "what the hell did they do to those poor puppies to make them shriek and whimper 42 times"

"Removing a dogs tail for preventative reasons when it is perfectly healthy and useful to the dog is clearly not in the animals best interest and it is ridiculous that it is embodied in animal welfare legislation."

This is the very mentality which leads to unnecessary pain in adult dogs. Certainly tail docking is not the first and only preventative procedure which is done in our society by responsible and caring people. To take the example of breast cancer. It is well known that women who have breast cancer in one breast will remove both in order to prevent related problems later. Docking a perfectly health tail is no different to removing a perfectly healthy breast. It is called prevention.

To view images of what an injured tail on a fully grown dog looks like click on the following links, but be warned these are very graphic images and may be disturbing:

"Inflicting a forced, painful and unnecessary injury to prevent an accidental one is contrary to the animals welfare and that's why we oppose it. Also the incidence of dogs tails having to be removed due to actual injury or disease is extremely low," says Dr Sillince.

What an interesting choice of words but of course these words make prefect sense given that the AVA recorded 42 shrieks & whimpers during and after tail docking. Clearly these puppies were subjected to cold and heartless injury rather than the tail docking, at the hands of the AVA.

Q. And why were they subjected to this cold and heartless pain?

A. In order to mislead those who know no different. In order to get "fabricated evidence" at any cost.

Vets have been invited to view tail docking procedure done by Accredited Tail Dockers but decline that invitation.


That's easy to answer. If they saw and learnt how to do this without so much as a single shriek and/or whimper the AVA would have no case to pursue a ban on tail docking. All other "reasons" have failed to stand up to scrutiny and the AVA is clutching at straws with this one too. The AVA is willing to do anything, even subject puppies to unnecessary pain and cruelty to mislead you.

If you would like to make comment/s on the misleading information which is put out by the AVA, we encouraged you to contact:

Dr. Jo Sillince
AVA National President
Ph: 0412 609 151


Jenny Palmer
AVA Media and Information Officer
pH: (02) 9411 2733 / 0402 996750

What can you do to let the AVA know just how much you disagree with their tactics?

Two suggestions are:

  1. DO NOT support the AVA Hip and Elbow Scheme. Simply do not use the AVA or the AVA member veterinarians to have the hip and elbow x-rays evaluated. You must also let your controlling canine council know you will not support such a scheme.
  2. DO NOT use any vet who will not dock tails. When you make a call to a vet for something, before you make the appointment ask "Do you dock tails?" If the answer is "No", let that veterinarian know that you will not make the appointment because of that "No".

OK, so you still need to get those hip and elbow x-rays evaluated but who can you go to? Following is a list of suggestion:


Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA]

Where do I begin?

The RSPCA has put out so much misleading and emotive information about the issue of tail docking that it seems to have become a competition between the RSPCA and the AVA on who can out do who and just how much misleading information can be put out to the general public by who.

It is difficult to know who gets first prize but you can be the judge on that.

Lets examine previous arguments given by the RSPCA to ban tail docking:

  • it is cruel - this has clearly been proven to be untrue and because of the evidence against this argument, the RSPCA has dropped this as one of the reasons
  • it is painful - this too has been proven to be untrue and once again this has been dropped by the RSPCA
  • it is cosmetic - this argument is slowly loosing momentum because yet again it is very clear that the traditional animal husbandry practices, which include tail docking in some breeds, were never based on cosmetic reasons. For example look at the Weimaraner, my breed of choice; when the forefathers developed this beautiful breed they did not for one second say to themselves "Oh I must have a cosmetically beautiful hunting dog because so and so is looking." The forefathers saw the very real problems associated with tail damage in adult dogs and the extreme and unnecessary pain associated with it that a decision was made to dock puppies between 1-3 days of age, when the nervous system is underdeveloped and minimal, in some case no pain, is felt by the puppies. Read the fact about tail docking here.

"The basic nervous system of a dog is fully developed at birth and the available evidence indicates that puppies have similar blah blah blah"

Yes indeed the "basic" nervous system is present however it is NOT fully developed, but what is the available evidence anyway? Is it just one sided? Is it done in such a way so as it can be used as a "valid" [and that is questionable and debatable] argument, or rather as misleading information to support a very weak argument on the hot issue of tail docking. Keeping in mind that offers from Accredited Dockers for veterinarians to be present during tail docking procedure has been declined on all occasions. It is much easier to form an argument when a veterinarian only know how to inflict injuries to puppies in order to get the so called "evidence". I am more then happy to provided video footage of tail docking procedure which is painless but no vet or RSPCA or anyone from AVA has asked for a copy.

"Another 'explanation' is that docking prevents tail damage in hunting dogs. But most docked puppies are kept as family pets and are never used for hunting. And research has shown that docking does not reduce tail injury in the general dog population."

The Weimaraner is docked to prevent tail damage. There is no other reason, contrary to what the RSPCA and AVA will have you believe. Sure there are always going to be some puppies which will go as family companions but many of my Weimaraners are used as hunting companions. Further I export to countries such as the USA to breeders and hunting fanciers who would not import an undocked Weimaraner. Effectively this ludicrous law (varying in each Australia State and Territory) to ban tail docking is not only taking my democratic right to choose but is restricting my ability to export to the USA. This is unfair trade and opens another hot topic for discussion and consideration.

The RSPCA's latest campaign is headed:

Tail Docking Campaign
Stop dogs becoming fashion victims - ban tail docking

Fashion victims?

What is the RSPCA talking about. Docked breeds have been docked for centuries, hardly a fashion statement. Sad but true, victims they are, but at the hands of the RSPCA and AVA.

Lets not forget that this emotive and ridiculous campaign by the RSPCA and AVA is only newly born and IT IS the fashion to leave a tail on.

The RSPCA will also have you believe that the tail is docked for the show ring. What a load of hog wash. The dog is judged on conformation not on the docked or undocked tail. If the dog was judged because of a docked or undocked tail many who have won would not because the tail has been docked too short or too long or not docked at all.

The RSPCA and AVA have no argument. What they do have is time and have no idea what to do with it so they develop this and other absolutely ridiculous campaigns in order to keep themselves busy. What else could be the reason! In the case of the RSPCA it begs the question if this is just a way to show the "donating" public that they are doing "something" with the denotations. And yes another question would be to know how come so much money is being used on an issue so unimportant as this yet the real, the VERY REAL, cruelty is allowed to continue. Take a look at a few examples I am taking about here.

But the icing on the proverbial cake is the endorsement by the RSPCA on the label for eggs you buy in your supermarket. Anyone who saw the Sunday Show 30 November 2003 will have seen what the RSPCA is endorsing. Even the Animal Terrorists no longer see eye to eye with Mr Hugh Wirth and the once well respected organisation who we all looked up, called the RSPCA.

What you are not doing Mr. RSPCA IS cruelty!

That is evidence against you Mr. RSPCA!

Please Mr RSPCA plug in and get with the program of addressing the REAL cruelty issues and stop wasting the Government funding and the public donations on issues that clearly ARE NOT cruel!

I guess that still leaves all those animals which need your support. How can you do that without directly supporting the RSPCA?

  1. DO NOT support the RSPCA directly.
  2. DO NOT give money to the RSPCA.
  3. DO NOT use the RSPCA veterinary facility.
  4. DO NOT use the RSPCA boarding facility
  5. DO NOT purchase anything through the RSPCA telephone facilitated gift store.
  6. DO buy animal feed, such as dog food and cat food and donate it to the animals in need.
  7. DO buy blankets and towels and donate those to the animals that need them.
  8. DO buy worming medications and donate those to the animals that need them.
  9. DO offer to volunteer some of your time to walk a homeless dog which is awaiting the perfect family to come along.
  10. DO offer to volunteer your time to give a cat or kitten a cuddle and a brush.

Destruction of history and tradition

The Animal Terrorists, the RSPCA and the AVA have taken it upon themselves to destroy heritage, tradition and history when they began their campaign to ban tail docking. Docked breeds have been around for many years some for centuries as is the case with the Weimaraner. How dare these emotive extremists be given the endorsement of the Australian politicians to fulfill their sinister plans.

We preserve historic building well after they have stopped being used for the purpose what they were originally built. The Old Melbourne Mint is a classic example. I got married there but didn't see any money made. The building is old, it no longer serves the traditional purpose of making money so lets knock it down and put something more fitting to our changing times.

Was that an outburst?

But why not knock it down?

These emotive extremists want to ban history, heritage and tradition when they seek to ban tail docking!

How is it different?

It is not different at all. We as responsible custodians of our docked breeds have been entrusted by the forefathers of our chosen breed to care for and maintain it. To preserve it. What or who gives the RSPCA, the AVA and the Animal Terrorists the right to go about seeking ways to destroy history, heritage and tradition!

A vintage car is preserved.

It is allowed to drive on our modern day roads in it's historic and traditional look.

It is slow. It looks different. It can be frustrating driving behind one. So lets make it a law that they all be taken to the scarp heap and made into modern cars.

What? Another outburst!

But this is the very thinking and mentally that the RSPCA, the AVA and the Animal Terrorists apply to the campaign to ban tail docking! And has the support of our politicians.

Same mentality different subject.

Senator Andrew Bartlett introduced Animal Welfare Bill 2003 as a private members bill which totally strips your democratic rights and gives the above mentioned all the powers to rule, yes RULE, because that is exactly what it is, over your animals. Be they dogs, cats, cows, sheep, horses, fish or your budgie.

Each time these absurd Bills get even so much as a single sitting, it brings our Nation closer to dictatorship.

It brings our freedoms closer to no freedoms.

It takes away our democratic right of choice. Our forefather made a bloody appearance in two world wars to fight so we can enjoy freedom.

Freedom of choice.

Freedom of speech.

Freedom full stop.

Senator Andrew Bartlett is the leader of the Democrats. You can visit his website and learn more about the man behind name:

But wait there is more then that to Senator Bartlett. He is a thief according to The Herald-Sun newspaper report 6 December 2003:

"A shaken Senator Jeannie Ferris was left nursing an injured upper arm after chasing Senator Bartlett, who had taken five bottles of wine from a Liberal Party Christmas barbecue in Parliament House."

But wait there's more still. He has a violent streak which was reported in the same news story:

"The ugly altercation spilled on to the floor of the Senate chamber, where Senator Bartlett repeatedly shook Senator Ferris by the shoulder and called her a " bitch"."

The story continues with a fashion statement Senator Bartlett made on the Thursday evening:

"Senators, including fellow Democrat Lyn Allison, watched in horror as the purple-shirted and purple-faced party leader lurched at Senator Ferris, grabbed her then hurled abuse."

But the icing on the cake has to be that he is a hypocrite:

"He has campaigned against violence to women."

The full story as reported by The Herald-Sun newspaper was available on this URL however this URL now returns an error. If you want to read this story you may wish to contact the Herald-Sun, quote the URL and ask where the story can be read.


Does this Senator have any credibility?

Did you vote for Senator Bartlett?

Will you vote for Senator Bartlett?

For that matter, will you vote for the Democrats?

6 December 2003, 18:15 [AEDT]

The Democrats have gone into damage control with the announcement that Senator Andrew Bartlett stood down as the leader of the Democrats, as a result of his behaviour reported by The Herdal-Sun newspaper. In a news flash it is reported that Senator Bartlett will work through the issues raised by the unpleasant incident and will do so privately.

This breaking news story can be found by visiting here,5478,8085488%255E1702,00.html
however this page now returns an error. If you want to read this story you may wish to contact the Herald-Sun, quote the URL and ask where the story can be read