Dear Michael Beatty
RE: Salthouse.
I have visited the property 4 times and spent 4 afternoons there and had tea with Lorraine and Bob Salthouse. I have watch how her dogs love her and follow her where she goes. I have picked up and patted many of the dogs and they are very pleasant likable dogs. I have watched as several of the friends I had with me fell in love with one of the dogs and wanted them. The dogs are well fed on animal carcasses that Bob gets from a butchers and seem to me to be very normal well adjusted contented happy animals. (I am presuming from your email that you have never visited the Ocean View property in question. When you have feel free to get back to me with your thoughts on the conditions the animals are living in.)
I have observed that the place is a bit of a mess but that is not the point, Lorraine loves her dogs and those who purchase dogs from her get a well adjusted pleasant home loving animal that makes an ideal pet.
Even if I would not keep as many dogs myself I must fight for her rights to do so because when she loses her rights to love many dogs I also can lose my rights and freedoms also. A great American President said, I do not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it. This is how I feel about the Salthouses. I may not myself want so many animals but I will defend her right to have those animals.
They are not abused at all, they are loved animals. They all have names and will individually come when their name is called.
You also took their chickens which they have been selectively breeding for 25 years. That loss for them is heart breaking and I wonder why you would do this to those people. If you cared about animals and people you would leave them where they are happy together at 1902 Mount Mee Road, Ocean View they are happy together. I know someone who has two dogs as pets, If I told you where he was would you take one because two is too many. When you begin the caper you have begun with the Salthouses where do you draw the line? You have this person with the two dogs too scared to visit the Salthouses incase your RSPCA bullies come and confiscate his dogs also.
You may have good intentions but they are your good intentions, they may not be fair intentions, they are not intentions that respect other people's property, they do not respect other people's feelings and they do not do the right things by the animals.
You have taken dogs that had freedom to wander around a whole farm and play with other dogs and follow Lorraine and you took those dogs and locked them into wire cages with concrete floors. Then you try to say the dogs are better off. You should have your head read.
(As to the rest of your email’s misguided, misconceived and misquoted claptrap, I suggest you check your facts more carefully before “putting pen to paper.”)
There is a famous experiment, the Prison Experiment This experiment is about what happens when you put good people incharge of others as their prisoners. It is also about what happens when you appoint RSPCA inspectors to look after animals and give them certain powers under an Act. It shows how those Inspectors can become abusive and dictatorial enforcing their every whim, like how many animals a person can have.
The Australian Army have rules of engagement and those rules become a guide to how the army should behave. In East Timor the Australian Army was welcomed and appreciated because of their behaviour. The soldiers did not go out of control and shoot up everyone like the Indonesian army, with out rules of engagement did.
This is where the RSPCA will do itself the greatest disservice because the RSPCA will take on and cause affront to others who will fight back and destroy the RSPCA's reputation and eventually the RSPCA. People will become so incensed at the injustice they suffer from the RSPCA that other people will join with them and a movement will rise and destroy the RSPCA. This is the direction you are taking the RSPCA with your behaviour towards the Salthouses and others. You will bring about your own demise.
Personally I cannot wait and will help along your demise as much as I can because of what you have done to the Salthouses.
Regards Trevor Croll
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Beatty
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: RSPCA Bullies

I am presuming from your email that you have never visited the Ocean View property in question. When you have feel free to get back to me with your thoughts on the conditions the animals are living in.

As to the rest of your email’s misguided, misconceived and misquoted claptrap, I suggest you check your facts more carefully before “putting pen to paper.”


Michael Beatty

Media & Community Relations Manager



Phone: 07 3426 9902

Fax: 38481178

Mobile : 0415 385 602






From: Maria Mercurio [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 3/11/2008 10:45 AM
To: Mark Townend
Subject: Fwd: RSPCA Bullies

Over to you!



Maria Mercurio
Chief Executive Officer
RSPCA Victoria
Ph. 03 9221 0080

Ribbon of Life - give a gift with meaning for any occasion.

>>> RSPCA Enquiries 11/03/2008 8:23 am >>>



>>> "Tcroll" <[email protected]> 8/03/2008 8:07 pm >>>

Since when is it a crime to love too many animals? RSPCA thinks it should limit how many animals a person can love? What bullies!


I find it appalling that Labor would have a policy to put pet shop owners out of business, to stop all the hobby farmers from hobby farming, to take animals away from circuses, to stop live animal exports etc.. and worse Read about these policies at :


This Labor policy has been implemented upon Queenslanders in a secret and I would suggest against the principles of our Constitution way. Labor empowered the RSPCA under the Animal Care and Protection Act to be able to enter anyone's property and under threat of prosecution impose their own policies. Mr & Mrs Salthouse is one of many victims of this Labor Policy. They have been hobby farming with their animals for 25 years, that was till the RSPCA entered upon their property, then bullied them that their animals were not properly looked after, then confiscated their animals because the RSPCA Officer was of the opinion that they had too many animals on their 40 acres of land at Ocean View. The Act allows the RSPCA to enforce their opinion upon the unsuspecting.


The RSPCA Strategy employed is to make a claim that the animals are not properly looked after and make suggestions producing a care and protection notice. The unsuspecting victim then puts their efforts into making changes to try to meet the RSPCA expectations, they build new bird cages, they make new kennels for their dogs, they improve their fences, purchase extra fodder for their cattle - what the they thought the RSPCA wanted from them. But this is only a strategy to deflect the victim from seeking a review of the RSPCA's care and protection notice.


Because - all the effort is in vain, as the RSPCA will come back and take all the animals and then begin selling them for the RSPCA's own profit, or for media self promotion perform other improper acts like shooting all the cattle leaving 14 calves without their mothers as in another case -


When we look at the RSPCA and their policy we find that there is a fundamental problem in the administration of Government.


Governments make policy and implement those policies in legislation.


Government Departments can make subsidiary legislation for the purpose of implementing the legislation.


Government Departments cannot make policy as this would conflict with government policy and thus make the Government unaccountable to Parliament and the People.


The RSPCA have been empowered to implement Government Policy through the Animal welfare and protection Act. But the RSPCA do not respect Government Policy as they have their own which is in conflict with Government Policy in many ways.


Councils are empowered under the Government Legislation to develop and implement laws - by laws. But those by-laws have to be consistent with the State legislation and become subsidiary legislation and are accountable through the court process. That is that if there is a dispute over the by laws the citizens have the right to test those by laws and their effect in courts.


This means that the RSPCA policy has effectively become subsidiary legislation and regulation BUT the citizen does not have the power to test those regulations and their implementation in the Courts. This allows the RSPCA to abuse their Powers under the ACT. They can go onto a person's property for the purpose of implementing their policies using the power Bestowed in them by the Animal Welfare and Protection Act and there is nothing a citizen can do about it.


It also means that they can misuse the Animal Welfare and Protection act to implement their policies. That means that much of what they do is for improper purpose - or unconstitutional and so they are in effect acting without power when they apply the power invested in them by the Animal Welfare and Protection Act.


In other words. There is a constitutional argument that they did not have the power to shoot cattle because the ACT that gave them the power is unconstitutional. There is the Judiciary Act of 1902 which implemented the Australian Constitution and defined how this was to happen.


The RSPCA can act in a fully unaccountable way because most people will avoid the courts and lawyers for their remedy.


I trust that something will be done about this situation