| Andrew
Bellingham
Manager Local Laws and Traffic
Ballarat City Council
PO Box 655
Ballarat 3353
October 31, 2004
Dear Andrew
Re: Puppy Farm at Eastern Peake Road
Learmonth
On 31 October at 11am, I along with fifty-three
members/supporters of Animal Liberation Victoria
conducted a two and a half-hour inspection of
the puppy farm in Learmonth. We once again have
filmed and documented countless violations to
the Code of Practice for Breeding Establishments
including the following.
Section 2.3 Animal Attendants
The proprietor of a breeding
and rearing establishment must train or employ
experienced personnel for the handling and management
of animals. Animal attendants are responsible
to the proprietor for: daily feeding, watering
and inspection of all animals, daily cleaning
of facilities, i.e. hose out, replace bedding,
litter trays, feeding and watering utensils, reporting
of sick and injured animals to the manager.
I observed one staff member who appeared to be
17 or 18 years of age cleaning the pens. I asked
him how many pens he had cleaned that day and
he counted out aloud five. I asked him how many
staff were on the premises cleaning and he stated,
"me, what do you expect it’s the weekend".
After a short conversation he stated to me, "I
don’t give a shit about these dogs, I'm
just here to clean". Not one member of our
team observed any other staff member cleaning
the pens or feeding and watering.
Section 3.1 Nutrition.
All animals must have a permanent
supply of fresh, clean water.
Most of the dogs water bowls in the drive way
pens were empty, and the bowls that did hold water
had algae growing in them. Our team cleaned all
the bowls and ensured that all the dogs had water.
Section 3.4 Hygiene
The proprietor must ensure that the establishment
is to be clean and hygienic at all times. All
pens must be cleaned out at least once per day
(twice daily if inspection shows it is required)
by hosing or other appropriate means after removing
all used, contaminated bedding and litter and
all uneaten food by hand before hosing, to ensure
the pen is fresh and clean. Pests including fleas,
ticks, flies, mosquitoes and rodents must be effectively
controlled.
The entire property is in an appalling condition.
In some pens at the back of the property the faeces
on the pen floor was 3 inches thick. A team member
spent 45 minutes shoveling the manure out of one
pen alone. Rats were observed and filmed nesting
under the kennel floors. The amount of flies surrounding
the dogs' pens was indescribable. Litters of puppies
were filmed curled up together sleeping on piles
of dog faeces. It is impossible for the number
of staff employed there to clean each pen daily
and the pens obviously have not been cleaned for
weeks and in some cases months. In general the
property is far from clean and hygienic and is
an occupational health hazard.
Section 3.7 Housing
Housing must provide protection from the weather
(wind, rain, sun and extremes of climate), vermin
and harassment from other animals.
All kennels must be provided with a weatherproof
sleeping area containing raised beds constructed
of a material other than concrete, such as wood
or plastic.
Most of the driveway pens hold three dogs and
we observed and filmed one dog that was being
harassed by the other two dogs in the pen. The
dog was bleeding from the mouth and was very distressed.
Rats were filmed nesting underneath the kennel
floor.
A number of other violations to the code were
filmed and documented. Our footage is available
upon request.
The most distressing sight observed was the number
of dogs that appeared ill. Two puppies in a "hospital
pen" were in a small cage that had obviously
not been cleaned for a number of days. Their water
bowl was filthy and there were worms in their
water. The sign on their cage door informed us
that these pups were both from the same mother,
"rhapsody" and they had "trouble
breathing, chesty cough". These pups appeared
extremely lethargic, underweight and close to
death.
In a small tin shed we found 8 dead puppies in
a fridge. We also observed a number of veterinary
drugs and syringes precariously balanced in jars
of liquid also in the fridge. We looked through
a box of rags and found what we thought to be
another dead puppy, until it moved and we realized
that this puppy was indeed still alive. It appeared
to be approximately 1 week old and had been placed
on a water bottle, which was cold, and then had
rags thrown over it. We immediately fed this puppy
with puppy milk via a syringe. The puppy consumed
2 mls of liquid and was obviously very dehydrated.
The number of violations to the code of practice
on this property warrants an immediate prosecution
and the permit revoked. May I remind you that
Ron Wells has had a ridiculous number of warnings
issued by Council over the last ten years that
have achieved nothing. As far back as 1994 I attended
a council meeting in which Ron Wells was given
12 months to comply with the Code of Practice
and Ron Wells assured everyone at that meeting
that he would indeed comply by April 1997. It
is now 2004 and he is still not complying.
I urge you to immediately prosecute and close
this farm down.
Yours sincerely,
Debra Tranter, Campaign Manager
Animal Liberation Victoria.
CC. Kevin Apostolides, Chief Inspector RSPCA
Victoria.
Mayor David Vendy
Dr Stephen Tate Bureau of Animal Welfare
Cr David James
Cr Peter Innes
Cr Stephen Jones
Cr Val Sheil
Cr Liz Sheedy
Cr Wayne Rigg
Cr Ian Jolly
Cr Des Hudson
ALV’s complaint
to the Ballarat City Council, April 8, 2004
Andrew Bellingham
Manager Local Laws
Ballarat City Council
115 Gilles Street
South Wendouree 3353
April 8 2004
Dear Andrew,
Re: Puppy Farm at Eastern Peake Road in Learmonth
I wish to make a complaint about the puppy farm
situated at Eastern Peake Road, Learmonth and
request that council make an immediate inspection.
We attended the property on Monday April 5 and
witnessed violations of the Code of Practice for
the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments
(the code) and are very concerned for the wellbeing
of the dogs.
While at the property on April 5, we observed
the manure pit at the back of the property. This
manure pit has not been covered with topsoil and
remains exposed. It is full of dog excrement along
with general household rubbish and discarded items
of furniture. The resultant smell was nauseating.
Section 3.4 of the code states: "Animal breeding
and rearing establishment sites must have an adequate
water supply and must be sewered or on a septic
system, or have some other adequate method of
disposing of faeces".
I first reported this manure pit to Ballarat
council and the EPA in 1996. I believe that it
is not an adequate system of waste disposal for
378 dogs and poses serious health and environmental
risks. The ongoing disregard by this puppy factory
to abide by the council permit conditions is obvious.
I refer to the environmental health report undertaken
by Ballarat Council on 15 October 2003 (subsequent
to my latest complaint). Ballarat Council at that
time advised the managers of the property to cover
the manure pit with topsoil to minimise faecal
odours, liquid waste run off and the dispersal
of rubbish. This clearly has not been done some
6 months later.
Section 3.8(a) of the code ("individual
sleeping quarters must be provided when two adult
dogs are housed in one pen".) was also violated.
I observed large dog breeds on the property which
do not have sufficient housing in accordance with
this requirement. The kennel size was inadequate
for the size of the dogs and only one small kennel
was provided for two large dogs. I also observed
three and sometimes four dogs kept in the same
pen, another violation to section 3.8(a) of the
code which states "under no circumstances
can more than two dogs be housed in the one pen".
We are concerned about the number of dogs on
the property and believe that they may have exceeded
their limit of 378 adult dogs.
There are also serious concerns about the welfare
of the dogs on the property. There was no bedding
in the kennels inspected on April 5 nor has there
ever been on any previous inspections. The dogs
are forced to sleep on cold flooring which offers
no comfort at all. On previous inspections of
this property in winter when temperatures were
below zero the kennels were leaking, this problem
needs to be kept under surveillance as it is totally
unacceptable to house dogs in these conditions
especially in extreme weather conditions.
There are also concerns that the dogs are not
receiving adequate veterinary treatment. A large
number of dogs were filthy and had long-standing
matting of their fur with some knots the size
of my fist. I also have reason to believe that
some of the dogs might be suffering from ear infections.
I would like the relevant records checked to ensure
adequate and regular veterinary checks on each
dog.
Animal Liberation Victoria would like an immediate
and unannounced inspection by council officers.
In view of the owners' past history of non compliance
and violations to their planning permit and the
code of practice I believe this complaint should
be treated as urgent.
We would also ask that regular monthly council
inspections start to take place to ensure compliance
with the code of practice, planning permit and
dog welfare. Council records indicate that only
one council inspection has been undertaken in
the past two years and this was after my complaint
in October 2003.
If council is going to issue permits to people
to allow the breeding of hundreds of dogs to supply
an already saturated market, then council has
a responsibility to regulate the conditions of
the property and ensure the dogs welfare.
Sincerely yours,
Debra Tranter, Campaign Manager
Animal Liberation Victoria
cc. Kevin Apostolides RSPCA Chief Inspector
Mayor David Vendy
Dr Stephen Tate
Cr David James
Cr Peter Innes
Cr Stephen Jones
Cr Val Sheil
Cr Liz Sheedy
Cr Wayne Rigg
Cr Ian Jolly
Cr Des Hudson
Response from Andrew Bellingham April
22, 2004
Ms Debra Tranter
Animal Liberation Victoria
394 Russell Street
Melbourne 3000
Dear Debra
DOG BREEDING ESTABLISHMENT AT EASTERN PEAKE ROAD,
LEARMOTH.
Thank you for your letter dated 8 April regarding
your concerns about the operation of the dog breeding
establishment located at Learmonth.
Your letters primary concern is for the welfare
of the dogs. The most recent inspections of the
business were conducted on 25 August 2003 and
again on 9 October 2003. The inspection on 25th
August was undertaken by me in the company of
Debbie Huggett (City of Ballarat Animal Control
Officer) and Kirsten Hughes (RSPCA Inspector).
The visit was unannounced, and the major focus
was to assess the dogs’ welfare following
concerns that you raised with me by earlier telephone
conversation. Following this inspection, the RSPCA
Inspector had no matters of concern about the
welfare of the dogs.
The business was inspected again on 9th October
by me in the company of Mark Fallows (City of
Ballarat Environmental Health Officer) and Russell
McMurray from the Bureau of Animal Welfare. The
assessment by the Environmental Health Officer
noted that wastes in the refuse pit should be
routinely covered to minimise odours, runoff and
dispersal of rubbish. It was agreed with the proprietor
of the business that the covering of wastes in
the pit is to be on a weekly basis. This assessment
also required attention to be directed to routine
checking and maintenance of the septic tank system.
Under the “Code of Practice for the Operation
of Breeding and Rearing Establishments”,
an establishment must have an “adequate
method of disposing faeces”. Subject to
meeting was considered to have an adequate method
of disposing faeces.
Your letter notes concerns about excess numbers
of dogs housed in individual pens, and that there
was a violation of the requirement for individual
sleeping quarters. The Council inspections of
last year noted that the “Driveway Pens”
housed three adult dogs. Previous Council officers
agreed to allow three dogs to be housed in these
pens on the basis of the size of the pens being
so far in excess of the minimum size specified,
with a large grassed area provided combined with
a concreted section and housing and housing that
provides weather protection. In addition, the
proprietors advice in October was that sleeping
boxes were gradually being upgraded where necessary,
and this was confirmed at the inspection with
evidence sighted of a number of new boxes having
been recently installed.
Your letter suggests that the number of dogs
on the property “may have exceeded their
limit of 378 adult dogs”. Previous inspections
do not support this claim. The premises have 195
enclosures and 90 of these are for maternity purposes
which generally house one adult dog (with pups)
at any one time. In order for the permitted number
of 378 adult dogs to be exceeded, mathematically,
the remaining 105 enclosures would be required
to house an average 2.7 dogs each, taking into
account that three dogs may be kept as domestic
pets by residents on the property. These numbers
were not observed on previous inspections. In
addition, Council records show that 308 dogs were
registered at the premises for the 2003/04 year.
It is stated that the dogs are forced to sleep
on cold flooring. From my previous inspections,
I have observed that there is a raised sleeping
box within a weatherproof facility within each
enclosure, and that bedding was provided to the
sleeping boxes, as is required by the code.
In regard to veterinary care, records inspected
previously indicate that dogs are vaccinated as
required by the code for distemper, hepatitis
and parvoviru. In instances were dogs were undergoing
medical treatments, the detail of the treatment
was provided on the enclosure. At the time of
the inspection, veterinary care was considered
to be in compliance with the cose, and further
confirmed by the RSPCA Inspector that the dogs’
welfare was not an issue.
The operation of this business has generated
controversy since its inspection. Council’s
position in regard to the operation of this business
has remained consistent – that is, that
while the concerns of the community are understood,
Council can only assess the business from legal
perspectives rather than from legal perspectives
rather than from a moral or philosophical stance.
I am aware of Animal Liberation’s interest
in this business over the past years, however
a brief overview of the history of the business
may be beneficial.
The business was granted a Planning Permit by
the former Shire of Ballarat in 1986 and initially
allowed a permit to keep 150 dogs, then revised
to permit 275 adult dogs. This permit was amended
in 1993 and the number of dogs permitted was increased
from 275 to 539.
Shire of Ballarat councilors inspected the premises
in August 1993, and City of Ballarat councilors
inspected that premises in April 1996. Following
the latter inspection, Council considered a report
on 16 April that indicated the premises did not
comply with the conditions of the existing permit,
did not comply with Domestic (Feral & Nuisance)
Animals Act 1994, and had an inadequate waste
disposal system. Accordingly, an application to
increase the number of dogs to 650 was refused.
In 1997, there were breaches of the Planning
Permit conditions that restricted Labradors from
the site, and restricted large breed dogs to a
maximum of 10 in a number. These matters were
lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
of Victoria by the City of Ballarat for determination,
but were withdrawn because the matters were “satisfactorily
resolved” through the negotiation and issue
of a new permit in January 1998.
In 1997 the property was upgraded in order to
comply with the adopted Code of Practice for the
Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments
and a new Planning Permit was applied for to allow
the keeping of 378 adult dogs, rather than the
539 previously permitted. Council resolved on
20 January 1998 to issue a Planning Permit allowing
the keeping of 378 adult dogs including 75 large
breed dogs (including Labradors) following consultation
with the Environmental Protection Authority, neighbors,
and Council officers from planning, Environmental
Health and Compliance sections.
This permit remains in place today.
As Council is required to register Domestic Annual
Business annually, Council officers inspect such
businesses at least annually to ensure compliance
with the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animal
Act, and the applicable Planning Permit.
In summary, inspections of the property in August
and October 2003 indicate that there were no concerns
about the welfare of the dogs at that time, and
that apart from issues about aspects of the methods
of disposing of faeces and the operation of the
septic system, the establishment is generally
operating in accordance with the relevant code
of practice. However, as a result of the concerns
that you have now raised, the premises will again
be inspected to ensure on-going compliance with
the relevant code.
If this inspection revels issues of non-compliance,
appropriate actions will be taken to address such
issues, and follow-up inspections will be scheduled
if considered necessary.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention
of Ballarat City Council, the RSPCA, and the Bureau
of animal Welfare.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Bellingham
Manager Local Laws & Traffic
Cc Mayor David Vendly
Neil Armstrong, Interim CEO
Mark Marsden, General Mananger Planning &
Environmental Services
Kevin Apostilades, RSPCA Chief Inspector
Dr Stephen Tate, Bureau of Animal Welfare
Steve Moore, Licensing & Audit Officer, Bureau
of Animal Welfare
Cr David James
Cr Peter Innes
Cr Stephen Jones
Cr Val Shiel
Cr Liz Sheedy
Cr Wayne Rigg
Cr Ian Jolly
Cr Des Hudson
ALV response to Andrew Bellingham, April
26, 2004
Andrew Bellingham
Manager Local Laws and Traffic
Ballarat City Council
PO Box 655
Ballarat 3353
April 26, 2004
Dear Andrew
Re: Puppy Farm at Eastern Peake Rd Learmonth
Thank you for your letter dated April 22 concerning
my April 8 complaint about the puppy farm in Learmonth.
I am disappointed and surprised that you have
not adequately addressed the serious concerns
raised in my previous letter. Furthermore, it
is unacceptable for you to base your answers to
my current concerns on an inspection conducted
6 months ago.
Your comment that the proprietors were asked to
cover the manure pit with soil on a weekly basis
does nothing to address my current complaint where
I clearly stated this is not being done. Ballarat
Council, as long ago as 1996, deemed this method
of waste disposal inadequate. The proprietors
have been given every opportunity to rectify this
situation but continue to ignore Council recommendations.
It was the Council's responsibility to conduct
a follow-up visit a few weeks after your October
9th inspection to assure the proprietors were
complying with the directive to cover the faeces
with soil.
Regarding my concerns on overcrowding, I again
do not accept your statement that Council has
allowed the keeping of 3 dogs per pen (eg: "Driveway
Pens") due to the size of these pens which
include a grassed area combined with a concrete
section and housing that provides weather protection.
Please refer to Section 3.8 of the Code of Practice
for Breeding and Rearing Establishments (the Code)
which quite clearly states: "Under no circumstances
can more than two dogs be housed in the one pen".
[My bolding and italics].
The proprietors are quite simply violating the
Code of Practice by confining 3 and 4 dogs per
pen. At any rate, the pens do not have grassed
areas and are, in fact, only dirt with holes dug
by the dogs (a clear sign of boredom). Neither
are the sleeping quarters weather proof and I
have video evidence to substantiate this claim.
Furthermore, I am at odds with your stated observation
that the dogs are provided with "a raised
sleeping box...and that bedding was provided".
I have been visiting this property since 1995
and I have never, ever, seen bedding provided
for these dogs, with the exception of some hay
our rescue team provided the dogs in the middle
of winter. (see photos attached of our last inspection
and photos from previous visits are available
upon request).
I can only surmise that your inspection was cursory
and you didn't observe each and every pen enclosure.
This is also borne out by your calculation of
the number of dogs on the property, which you
based on mathematical conjecture rather than an
actual head count. Surely a proper head count
would be the appropriate and responsible method
for Council to determine proper adherence to permit
conditions as well as registration fees. I request
that an immediate head count be taken by Council
to confirm the actual number of dogs on the property
and to ensure the proprietors are not exceeding
their limit as they have done in the past on numerous
occasions.
Again, I urge you to do an immediate inspection.
The cold wet weather is upon us and my sincere
concerns for these confined animals, including
inadequate veterinary care, remains. The proprietors
have a long track record of non-compliance with
countless warnings over the past 10 years.
Yours sincerely,
Debra Tranter, Campaign Manager
Animal Liberation Victoria
cc. Kevin Apostolides RSPCA Chief Inspector
Mayor David Vendy
Dr Stephen Tate
Cr David James
Cr Peter Innes
Cr Stephen Jones
Cr Val Sheil
Cr Liz Sheedy
Cr Wayne Rigg
Cr Ian Jolly
Cr Des Hudson
|
