# They "must" like me



## solar 17 (Sep 29, 2011)

Over the last 15 years the Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service (EPA) has now visited me 11 times including yesterday for 3 hrs there was one period where l had 4 visits in 17 weeks, threatened with court action (then dropped) for having a pair of Dusky Loris had my books taken and still not one fault has been found, one ranger threatened to camp on my nature strip plus some highly impersonal comments although yesterday's rangers were quite pleasant to deal with, what they said was its illegal to do "any" deals away from your residence so all those who meet at Macs or a garage those deals to them are illegal (l have people to my house) except on very very rare occasions.

What my question is how many visits in QLD. have people had ?

not once have they ever found "anything"

solar 17 (Baden)


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

None in the last 13 years.
I can understand about the deals away from a residence - that would require a Movement Advice to take the animals there (Macs car park, etc.).


----------



## yommy (Sep 29, 2011)

thats what happens when your so popular  

never - for me, but i might have just jinxed myself  

joys of having a small quality collection i welcome a visit. 

I reckon if your playing by the rules they'll find or get squat. It's all about having your paperwork in order.........


----------



## Smithers (Sep 29, 2011)

Hmm sounds like harassment to me,...maybe do a audio recording each time they visit and see if you can't turn the tables on them a little with their threats etc.

Why do they need to come so often?? If they have not found a thing what's the fascination with your place? Maybe it's as you mentioned in your title or they like to look at your top notch reps like us. 

Be interesting to see how many others have had simular repeat visits.


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

I've never been visited not worried about it either as far as i know i don't have anything to hide lol. 

Try offering them alcohol on their next visit?


----------



## GSXR_Boy (Sep 29, 2011)

solar 17 said:


> what they said was its illegal to do "any" deals away from your residence so all those who meet at Macs or a garage those deals to them are illegal (l have people to my house) except on very very rare occasions.



So what about exports?


----------



## Laghairt (Sep 29, 2011)

I wonder what the legislation states with regard to exchanging animals away from home. Rangers are not lawyers and just because their interpretation of the act is that it is illegal to exchange doesn't meant that they are right. I doubt that this has ever been legally tested so unless the legislation is very specific, their interpretation may not be correct.


----------



## nagini-baby (Sep 29, 2011)

Never visited. Never contacted.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

Baden, I think you'll find that someone who doesn't like you is causing this. Think back to any circumstance in the past where someone might have a grievance... often you'll find that it may be someone who has something to hide who is taking the heat off themselves...

As far as the carpark transactions are concerned - ask the officers if they are prepared to guarantee the security of your collection if they demand that you conduct all transactions at home. They cannot force you to compromise the wellbeing of you collection by a stupid bureaucratic requirement like that. It's the same as putting all details, including actual addresses on transaction forms. It's a very real breach of security, and an open invitation to creeps who want what you've got.

Jamie


----------



## akuji (Sep 29, 2011)

To negate this you could have a M/A from your address and do the exchange up the road; the advice and act does not state you cannot stop for food or heaven's a flat tyre.

Billy


----------



## swampie (Sep 29, 2011)

I've had 4 in the last 17 years of keeping birds and reptiles. The first 3 they just rocked up on my doorstep for random inspection. The last time (6months ago) they called first and organised a day to come around for inspection which is apparently what they have to do now.
Although it can be inconvenient I would prefer that they do random inspections as it makes it harder for people to get away with being dodgy. 

Cheers,
Al


----------



## Laghairt (Sep 29, 2011)

I suspect the notification of a visit is probably something to do with the EPA officers not having the powers to force entry onto premises (correct me if I'm wrong as I have never looked at QLD legislation). I imagine they would have to call the police to force entry if a keeper refused to allow an inspection.


----------



## Fuscus (Sep 29, 2011)

swampie said:


> Although it can be inconvenient I would prefer that they do random inspections as it makes it harder for people to get away with being dodgy.
> Al


Agree
Oh and 0 visits


----------



## swampie (Sep 29, 2011)

They never had the intention of forced entry when doing randoms, they always asked if it was a good time and if not they can come back at a time that was more convenient.
If they wanted to force entry they would just arrive with the police and a warrant I'd expect.


----------



## phantomreptiles (Sep 29, 2011)

Never heard from them, I can't understand them enforcing transactions must be done from home, I won't even put my address on any ma's. Surely this is just standard security, which they should understand?


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

Rondo said:


> I suspect the notification of a visit is probably something to do with the EPA officers not having the powers to force entry onto premises (correct me if I'm wrong as I have never looked at QLD legislation). I imagine they would have to call the police to force entry if a keeper refused to allow an inspection.



I think WA is the only state where wildlife officers can enter your house without a warrant, but they cannot enter a bedroom of bathroom if they do, so the regs stipulate that you may NOT keep reptiles in a bedroom or bathroom. Elsewhere you are within your rights to politely suggest a mutually suitable time for them to come back if they turn up cold. This is as it should be - no government official should have open and uninvited access to your residence during routine activities. If they have genuine reasons for believing that illegal activities are taking place, it's a different story and they would always have a warrant and be accompanied by police.

Jamie


----------



## Wild~Touch (Sep 29, 2011)

Since 1994 = one visit and they were sweet, polite and non-intrusive 

mmm...I like you and never (hardly ever) visit you


----------



## sagara_cp_2006 (Sep 29, 2011)

WOW... I have never been visited by the EPA for any reason. I have had my licence for about 7 years now.


----------



## mayhemmatt (Sep 29, 2011)

i cant even get the buggers on the phone to find stuff out.... nope not a visit phone call or even a letter to say anything.... they mustn't like me.... oh well with freinds like that who needs enemy's...


----------



## euphorion (Sep 29, 2011)

not a single visit in seven years


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

I agree with Jamie.......with the amount of 'no visits/contact' othes have had, it seems like they are targeting you for a reason. I have only had my licence for a yr, i have wondered when/how often they would do checks, not that i would mind. I do actually agree that they should be random checks though, a ph call first would just give those doing the wrong thing time to 'clean up'.


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Smithers said:


> Hmm sounds like harassment to me,...maybe do a audio recording each time they visit and see if you can't turn the tables on them a little with their threats etc..



If you don't have a warrant to record someone without their knowledge and then you go ahead and record them without informing them, it's inadmissible in court.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Anyone concerned about uninvited visitors, print this out and nail it on your front door.


*TRESPASS IS AN OFFENCE!* *

ADMITTANCE TO THIS PROPERTY IS* *ONLY* *BY INVITATION OR PRIOR APPOINTMENT*

*Appointments may be arranged by correspondence or by telephone*

*AUTHORITY*
*High Court of Australia*
*Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004*


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> If you don't have a warrant to record someone without their knowledge and then you go ahead and record them without informing them, it's inadmissible in court.



While this is true, i have been down this road in court before. I have a very violent ex, who even after 4yrs & numerous protection orders, still continues to make calls to me that are very unpleasent. While i am legally not aloud to record these ph calls, on advice from my solictor i still do. As she has explained it to me, yes they will be dismissed in court, but they are still also heard, therefor still will help me prove that at least the mental/emotional abuse is still happening. I think its kind of 'once you hear it, u cant un hear it' so even after it dismissed, its still been heard!


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

The law says that two persons must be made aware of the telephone call or personal conversation between person A (you) and person B is being recorded. That doesn't mean the person B has to be one of the two. You are A and any other person present can be B. 

E.g. if Baden and his wife turn on a recorder while being harassed by unwelcome visitors, that's good enough, the others don't need to be notified of the recording.


----------



## mayhemmatt (Sep 29, 2011)

what are ya neighbours like... do you get along with them... no need to answer but only takes a complaint by one of them and parks have to investigate.... might be worth thinking about....


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> While this is true, i have been down this road in court before. I have a very violent ex, who even after 4yrs & numerous protection orders, still continues to make calls to me that are very unpleasent. While i am legally not aloud to record these ph calls, on advice from my solictor i still do. As she has explained it to me, yes they will be dismissed in court, but they are still also heard, therefor still will help me prove that at least the mental/emotional abuse is still happening. I think its kind of 'once you hear it, u cant un hear it' so even after it dismissed, its still been heard!



That is a bit different to this instance. You're taping an abusive man to sway the judge in his opinion, if someone decided to take on a government dept. and presented that as evidence they would have it thrown out. 

I was booked for speeding illegally earlier this year and have the a-hole woman that booked me on tape admitting it. My dad's an ex detective sgt who worked in major crime and homicide. He advised me that I could have fought them, and it could have worked on my favour but it was very unlikely. 

Two very different circumstances.

Edit

By "I was booked for speeding illegally" I meant that I was illegally booked for speeding, when I actually wasn't speeding at all.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

"I do actually agree that they should be random checks though, a ph call first would just give those doing the wrong thing time to 'clean up'."

Do you think the off-chance that they'll find someone "doing the wrong thing" is worth surrendering the peoples' right to privacy in their own homes? Is whatever they're "doing wrong" likely to be of sufficient harm to warrant unfettered access to the homes of tens of thousands of keepers across the country? Wildlife departmentss are just one lot of hundreds of bureaucracies which could claim right of access to ensure you're doing the "right thing"...

If there is evidence, or a strong suspicion of, illegal trafficking in wildlfe, it may require a different approach, but they already have the means of dealing with suspect activity. Allowing any government official carte blanche access to our private property is not a good idea.

Maybe anyone who has children should be forced to allow free access by DOCS just be sure they're "doing the right thing," or the tax office should be able to come in at any time and check your receipts to be sure you're "doing the right thing" and fulfilling your community obligations...

I don't think so.

Many of those "doing the wrong thing" won't be in the system anyway, so escape the scrutiny licence-holders are subjected to.

Jamie


----------



## killimike (Sep 29, 2011)

Extremely well said Jamie!

I was gonna say pretty much the same thing, even with the DOCS eg actually, but you have expressed it much more eloquently.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

I realise they are different circumstances, although my reasons are not to 'sway' the judges mind so to speak, its more so a matter of just how bad our legal system is that even as the aggrieved i am the one that has to do all the 'proving' of things. Years worth of police & hospital reports are not enough once you reach the family courts! Anyway, all i was saying is that it is possible to find loop holes in certain things. As for going up against a gov agency, yes obviously it makes things perhaps harder, but im sure not totally impossible for someone who is being unfairly harrassed. 

Jamie, yeah ok, i get your point. But in all fairness, if im home & someone came to do a random check on my pets, i wouldnt have a problem with them doing so, i dont have anything to hide! As for the DOCS comment.......the relationship i was in caused exactly this for me, DOCS do not give notice before doing checks, they do just turn up.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

I have no problem with allowing access if it's convenient, that's a given. But if 'routine' inspections by government officials involve mandated access to your private property, we're heading down the path of a police state - reptile keepers in Australia will become the Jews of 1930s Germany. Hand bureaucrats power on a silver platter and they'll use it.

All for the sake of a few illegally held lizards or snakes...

Jamie


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

I do actually agree with what you are saying, i do feel the same way. Maybe i could have worded my other post a little better, but all i basically meant was that i personally wouldnt mind letting them in if they turned up at my house out of the blue. That was all.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

DOCs just turn up but you still don't have to allow them access without court orders in place. As for the "I'm not doing anything wrong" thing, maybe your not but too much power in the hands of bureaucrats or even law enforcement is a bad thing. An example of this is my sons Indonesian friend. When they brought in the anti terrorist laws after 9/11 and made it ok for the police, AFP etc to hold people without bail and search houses without a warrant my sons friends uncle and aunty who are market gardener were raided because one of their racist neighbors (who knew full well they were market gardeners) dobbed them in for buying lots of fertiliser. The AFP raided at gunpoint at 5 am. The house was ransacked, the kids were terrified, they were screaming abuse at them and threatening to shoot the husband and oldest son,they took the husband away, he was in custody for 10 days before they even interviewed him and then a further ten days with no charges laid, no access to legal representation and then finally released without charge. When they tried to get some justice they were told that under the Border Security and Anti Terror laws the AFP had done nothing wrong. This is the reason unfettered power can not be given to any government department, too much margin for misuse and misconduct.

Bel I was still typing after you answered Jamies post, haha


----------



## akuji (Sep 29, 2011)

That is not technically correct under the ppra of 2000 you do not need to always inform, 



kawasakirider said:


> If you don't have a warrant to record someone without their knowledge and then you go ahead and record them without informing them, it's inadmissible in court.


----------



## sara_sabian (Sep 29, 2011)

I had a visit once, when I upgraded my license, the rangers where lovely (one begged to touch the roughy as he'd never seen/touched) one before.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

I had DOCS at my place after every beating i copped. I am quite sure i had NO right to turn them away, their job is to check that in cases like this the children are safe. In each report DOCS presented to the courts it was stated why they were doing checks & that i always co-operated with them. Maybe i could have just turned them away, but im pretty sure they would then think that perhaps i had something to hide & would have just have come back with the police anyway.As for how traumatic it is on the children involved, whether it be DOCS or the police coming through your house, i completely agree, it can be very scary for little poeple, but in most cases, they dont make a habit of just targeting innocent people so in reality it isnt the agency's in the wrong, it is the people at the premises & whatever it is that causes them to keep coming back that is the problem.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

I'm sure that would be the case for most of us Bel711. We should always be mindful of the fact that one of the great things about this country is supposed to be our ability to go about our lives pretty much unfettered by intrusive bureaucracies. By degrees, this is changing, and we are more and more having to comply with constraints applied by governments of all colours. We as a group need to be careful about mindlessly handing intrusive powers to anyone, for any reason. Maybe reptile keepers are a suspicious lot and think that everyone else is up to no good, but I think you'll find that the very large percentage of keepers does nothing more wrong than allowing their books to get a bit behind... or they might perhaps leave a poo in the enclosure a bit too long if they've been busy.

I don't think either of those common failings justifies allowing the intrusion of government officials whenever it suits them.

That's not to say that some keepers don't need their arses kicked - if you see someone doing the wrong thing by all means make the call and get something done about it.

Jamie


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Random or prearranged inspections are OK with most of us who feel they have nothing to hide and as long as the officers are polite and reasonably intelligent, it's cool to go through the process. However, whet it comes to what Baden is experiencing, it's another matter and I would certainly be writing a letter to the Regional Director outlining the unacceptable conduct of the particular officers and demanding reasons why such frequent inspections are necessary.
That would be my first step.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> DOCs just turn up but you still don't have to allow them access without court orders in place. As for the "I'm not doing anything wrong" thing, maybe your not but too much power in the hands of bureaucrats or even law enforcement is a bad thing. An example of this is my sons Indonesian friend. When they brought in the anti terrorist laws after 9/11 and made it ok for the police, AFP etc to hold people without bail and search houses without a warrant my sons friends uncle and aunty who are market gardener were raided because one of their racist neighbors (who knew full well they were market gardeners) dobbed them in for buying lots of fertiliser. The AFP raided at gunpoint at 5 am. The house was ransacked, the kids were terrified, they were screaming abuse at them and threatening to shoot the husband and oldest son,they took the husband away, he was in custody for 10 days before they even interviewed him and then a further ten days with no charges laid, no access to legal representation and then finally released without charge. When they tried to get some justice they were told that under the Border Security and Anti Terror laws the AFP had done nothing wrong. This is the reason unfettered power can not be given to any government department, too much margin for misuse and misconduct.
> 
> Bel I was still typing after you answered Jamies post, haha



Excellent example of recent changes to the laws which will erode the traditional freedoms we have taken for granted in this country...

Jamie


----------



## mayhemmatt (Sep 29, 2011)

cause i have a seperate controlled enviroment room for my reps.... if parks rock up do ya reckon i could tell em that they can see them but they will have to go threw a quarantine period... of my descrection... and then they can go threw and have a look... then sit the buggers out back with the bull terrier for a coulpa hours...


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Horrible thing to happen to that family, but I don't know if I'm completely against it. If the information was correct and an attack was potentially stopped then I say good job. I'd much rather have someone (even myself if it came down to it) to be harassed a little bit, rather than take a chance so we don't step on any delicate flowers toes and have a bomb go off. Since these new laws they raided residencies in Sydney and they've uncovered plans and materials for large scale bombs.

Think about that attack that happened in Norway or wherever it was, where that guy pumped rounds into school children and similtaneously blew up a building... If someone actually decided to raid him they would have found his plans, which were found after the fact. They had more than enough reason to, he purchased 5 tons of fertiliser....

It's a shame that a-holes dob innocent people in for their own amusement, but if it got to the stage where it was "just another person crying wolf" then who knows what could happen.

There was a case in the UK where a bloke was living with the train bombers and a sim card of the bomber was found at the house of the "innocent" man. He was held and released after a couple of weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that he knew about the attacks. I think they were right in detaining him.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> I had DOCS at my place after every beating i copped. I am quite sure i had NO right to turn them away, their job is to check that in cases like this the children are safe. In each report DOCS presented to the courts it was stated why they were doing checks & that i always co-operated with them. Maybe i could have just turned them away, but im pretty sure they would then think that perhaps i had something to hide & would have just have come back with the police anyway.As for how traumatic it is on the children involved, whether it be DOCS or the police coming through your house, i completely agree, it can be very scary for little poeple, but in most cases, they dont make a habit of just targeting innocent people so in reality it isnt the agency's in the wrong, it is the people at the premises & whatever it is that causes them to keep coming back that is the problem.



Sorry, but since 9/11 yes they do make a habit of targeting innocent people. They have been given a ridiculous amount of power now and in some cases you no longer have rights to excercise. I won't let any government department into my home without prior notice or authorisation on principal, but if the police or AFP etc. decided to search my home, under the new laws I have no option but to let them without a warrant. I have nothing to hide which is why I should not have to be subjected to the invasive measures used by these departments. I understand your case is a little different but it doesn't make what they do right or even legal.


----------



## starr9 (Sep 29, 2011)

had my Lic now 4 5yrs (just got my 1st snake 2 weeks ago tho!) and Iv never had a visit. Id be ok if they just dropped over as I always like to have a cuppa tea and a chat!!! Never know what pointers they may give me!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Horrible thing to happen to that family, but I don't know if I'm completely against it. If the information was correct and an attack was potentially stopped then I say good job. I'd much rather have someone (even myself if it came down to it) to be harassed a little bit, rather than take a chance so we don't step on any delicate flowers toes and have a bomb go off. Since these new laws they raided residencies in Sydney and they've uncovered plans and materials for large scale bombs.
> 
> Think about that attack that happened in Norway or wherever it was, where that guy pumped rounds into school children and similtaneously blew up a building... If someone actually decided to raid him they would have found his plans, which were found after the fact. They had more than enough reason to, he purchased 5 tons of fertiliser....
> 
> ...



The point is, if they had just asked a couple of questions before raiding at gun point and arresting they would have found out that he had nothing to hide, they have the powers so they use them. Why hold him for 10 days without even interviewing him and what right did they have to scream and hurl abuse at innocent children. The police can now search and detain if they slightly suspect illegal activity which opens up a huge can of worms and avenues for abuse by the more corrupt members of law enforcement.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

mayhemmatt said:


> cause i have a seperate controlled enviroment room for my reps.... if parks rock up do ya reckon i could tell em that they can see them but they will have to go threw a quarantine period... of my descrection... and then they can go threw and have a look... then sit the buggers out back with the bull terrier for a coulpa hours...



What are you talking about? What do you call a quarantine - sitting outside for a couple of hours?


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> The point is, *if they had just asked a couple of questions before raiding at gun point and arresting they would have found out that he had nothing to hide*, they have the powers so they use them. Why hold him for 10 days without even interviewing him and what right did they have to scream and hurl abuse at innocent children. The police can now search and detain if they slightly suspect illegal activity which opens up a huge can of worms and avenues for abuse by the more corrupt members of law enforcement.



If I was hiding bombs, I'd try to be as polite as possible and lie my butt off in an effort to make them think they had the wrong person.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> If I was hiding bombs, I'd try to be as polite as possible and lie my butt off in an effort to make them think they had the wrong person.


For gods sakes, he was a market gardener, as in commercial size, if they had bothered to ask and check receipts and business dealings they could have cleared it up in minutes. Not to mention the fact he's lived here for 15 odd years with not even a parking fine or speeding ticket.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

'Kaotikjezta' I also understand where you are coming from, however just because you know personally that these people had nothing to hide doesnt mean the police should have 'just asked a few questions'.........your point is that since 9/11 things have gotten worse, which i wont deny, BUT if police have suspicions or information that someone is a danger, then im sorry but they definately should take action. There is a small majority of cops, just like any other profession, that do use their power in an unjust way, however after MANY police visits i have to admit the cops have ALWAYS respected that i have had children at the house & have gone about their business in an appropriate way. A great example of this is one time while i was being loaded into an ambulance & the police were arresting my ex & photographing damages, one officer dished my kids up a bowl of ice cream while waiting for my mum to arrive to collect them. They are not all bad!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> 'Kaotikjezta' I also understand where you are coming from, however just because you know personally that these people had nothing to hide doesnt mean the police should have 'just asked a few questions'.........your point is that since 9/11 things have gotten worse, which i wont deny, BUT if police have suspicions or information that someone is a danger, then im sorry but they definately should take action. There is a small majority of cops, just like any other profession, that do use their power in an unjust way, however after MANY police visits i have to admit the cops have ALWAYS respected that i have had children at the house & have gone about their business in an appropriate way. A great example of this is one time while i was being loaded into an ambulance & the police were arresting my ex & photographing damages, one officer dished my kids up a bowl of ice cream while waiting for my mum to arrive to collect them. They are not all bad!


That is very different, you were the victim, not the person they wanted to bust for something. I see it all the time around here, druggies buying and selling drugs all over the street but the cops target the young kids hanging out with friends after school, why coz they don't like the look of them. And you still haven't explained how locking someone up for 10 days without an interview is finding information.

EDIT: Sorry for hijacking your thread by the way.


----------



## Wally (Sep 29, 2011)

Wow, APS thread evolution at it's best.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

So are you saying they would have treated my kids differently if i was in the wrong? Im sorry, but i cant agree with you on that. The police or anyone else for that matter dont generally consider woman in dv cases victims.......they see it all too much, we are simply stupid for staying, & they just do their job. But at all times my children have always been the innocent ones, & i cant see they ever would have been treated differently!

As for your question about locking someone up for 10 days without an interview etc.......i cant see how that would even be legal, are you sure thats the way it went down or is this just what your friends have told you? If it really is the case, & they had NO reasons for keeping him......perhaps he should have seeked legal advice!


----------



## mayhemmatt (Sep 29, 2011)

no not just sitting outside... make them go threw a whole heap of bullshit... forms to state who they are and relevant numbers disclosures about where they have been and what animals they have been in contact with... the list goes on... making them sign a then they can go thre the same wash down proceedures that i do to enter the room... nothing flash just a time consuming excerise as well... as i have nothing to hide and im meant to have the reps welfare in mind.. i cant see them being able to decline... and might make them think twice about coming again...


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> So are you saying they would have treated my kids differently if i was in the wrong? Im sorry, but i cant agree with you on that. The police or anyone else for that matter dont generally consider woman in dv cases victims.......they see it all too much, we are simply stupid for staying, & they just do their job. But at all times my children have always been the innocent ones, & i cant see they ever would have been treated differently!


Sorry, will rephrase, they see your kids as victims, not the children of terrorists who obviously have no rights.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> Sorry, will rephrase, they see your kids as victims, not the children of terrorists who obviously have no rights.



Thats garbage! ALL children are considered innocent, whether their parents are terrorists, junkies, hookers etc or not, until they themselves do the wrong thing!


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

Site rule.
6. Posts must remain on the topic of the thread.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

elogov said:


> Site rule.
> 6. Posts must remain on the topic of the thread.


Your right, I respectfully bow out of the above conversation with a closing statement of tell that to this guys kids who had guns pointed in there faces and abuse hurled at them and their mother. As for the original post, I too would be starting to consider this behaviour as constituting harassment and abuse of power.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

elogov said:


> Site rule.
> 6. Posts must remain on the topic of the thread.



Sorry Baden.......although it got off track, i still stand by what i said earlier, i agree that perhaps you have been made an unfair target, whether it be someone you know personally or as someone else mentioned maybe a neighbour.....


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> For gods sakes, he was a market gardener, as in commercial size, if they had bothered to ask and check receipts and business dealings they could have cleared it up in minutes. Not to mention the fact he's lived here for 15 odd years with not even a parking fine or speeding ticket.



So because someone owns a commercial sized business and for all intents and purposes seems like an upstanding individual, they are exempt from scrutiny if a call has come in about them? EVERYTHING should be investigated. You should know yourself that things aren't always as they seem, and that big professional people can and have caused monumental tragedies.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> things aren't always as they seem, and that big professional people can and have caused monumental tragedies.


Don't even get me started on that one I guarantee you won't like where it goes.


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> Don't even get me started on that one I guarantee you won't like where it goes.



PM me, I'm interested as long as we can keep it amicable, I'm sure we can since we've spoken in the past about such things..


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

....... went for a walk, it's quite nice outside, the birds, you know ..... but I guess it's of no interest to you. 
Oh well, chill out Baden.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> PM me, I'm interested as long as we can keep it amicable, I'm sure we can since we've spoken in the past about such things..


empty your inbox then, lol


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Done.


----------



## longqi (Sep 29, 2011)

Not sure how this thread changed so rapidly
But back on topic

Because as a mobile demonstrator I traveled with my slitherers a lot I had to report to each base as I moved from one area to another
Most were really cool but one area was pretty tough as they couldnt believe how slitherers could be transported safely and comfortably until they inspected my set ups
Because of the number of movement advices etc I was putting in and the numerous address changes I probably was inspected twice a year for 17 years
That does not include the other times they would drop into a display I had going on somewhere
Had a couple of verbal warnings but that was it
[some of them just wanted to play with friendly snakes I think]


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

Sorry, my last comment on the new anti-terrorist laws... and the potential for change in any part of the legal system... it is a fact that you can now just disappear off the streets in this country, and not have the right to contact ANYBODY, even family members or a lawyer. You can just vanish. 

In the current political climate it may not appear too sinister (it's still an appalling abuse of power in our so-called democracy), but if the politics of this country changes and it is legal for the police to abduct you, Australia will be just like Chile or any other country where people can disappear simply on the basis of a suspicion of wrongdoing (and "wrongdoing" can be anything the police or politicins of the time don't like - look at Gaddafi). It's only a small step to fabricating reasons to make people disappear.

"There was a case in the UK where a bloke was living with the train bombers and a sim card of the bomber was found at the house of the "innocent" man. He was held and released after a couple of weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that he knew about the attacks. I think they were right in detaining him."

So, Kawasakirider, despite a HUGE police investucation spanning the world, the dropping of ALL charges and the payment of $1 million in damages for wrongful detainment, you clearly know more than the top terrorism investigators in the world... you must have been all of 14 or 15 at the time it happened. Dr Haneef was indeed lucky that you weren't on his case... 

I feel enormously secure knowing that you're keeping an eye on things in this country 

Bit by bit, step by step, with the support of people like you kawasakirider, we lose more of our freedom every day.

Jamie


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> "There was a case in the UK where a bloke was living with the train bombers and a sim card of the bomber was found at the house of the "innocent" man. He was held and released after a couple of weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that he knew about the attacks. I think they were right in detaining him."
> 
> So, Kawasakirider, despite a HUGE police investucation spanning the world, the dropping of ALL charges and the payment of $1 million in damages for wrongful detainment, you clearly know more than the top terrorism investigators in the world... you must have been all of 14 or 15 at the time it happened. Dr Haneef was indeed lucky that you weren't on his case...
> 
> ...



So you're telling me if your uncle bazza had all of his mates over and were planning a terrorist attack in YOUR HOME while you were present, you wouldn't have any idea? Are you saying you're that daft?

Did I say the man had any direct involvement in the acts? No. I said "innocent" < note the quotation marks, because despite his innocence, he still _could have been _somewhat guilty by association. I never said he should be hung for it if he was...

I said I agree with them investigating him. Where did I say I was better than the top terrorism investigators in the world? I simply supported their actions in detaining him for an investigation. He was found to have no involvement and was released. That's fantastic, but there was a chance that he was involved and they had to eliminate that suspicion, which they successfully did.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

You said you were sure he knew about it, which implies that he was guilty by association, and indicates that you were more in the know than the top terrorist investigators in the world. For your info, ANYONE "could" have known about it, even me... your words, not mine.

I don't have an Uncle Bazza by t way, and how do you know exactly where the attacks were planned?

Jamie


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Baden, mate, this is getting better and better. I am starting to be suspicious that you're harboring terrorists in your house and your snakes are loaded with explosives. Looking at the pictures you posted, they do look suspiciously fat.  The QPWS Officers are scared, that's why they keep checking on you.... but good on ya, I won't tell anyone.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Baden, mate, this is getting better and better. I am starting to be suspicious that you're harboring terrorists in your house and your snakes are loaded with explosives. Looking at the pictures you posted, they do look suspiciously fat.  The QPWS Officers are scared, that's why they keep checking on you.... but good on ya, I won't tell anyone.



Watch out Michael, kawasakirider's on your case... guilty by association... you know how it goes. And you're not even dark skinned .

Actually we owe it to Baden to get this back on track - it is a worry and it DOES sound like harassment. I'd be getting in touch with the minister to see what the problem is.

Jamie


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

Is this an appropriate moment? 
, 



What too soon?.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Sep 29, 2011)

Seen it before... so true. I LOVE it lol!

J


----------



## starr9 (Sep 29, 2011)

elogov said:


> Is this an appropriate moment? View attachment 219848
> ,
> 
> 
> ...



Hahaha! i love this!


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Pythoninfinite;2049421Actually we owe it to Baden to get this back on track - it is a worry and it DOES sound like harassment. I'd be getting in touch with the minister to see what the problem is.
Jamie[/QUOTE said:


> The Officers can't just go out and visit anybody they like (or dislike) on the whim. Their activities should be logged in and reports requested by they superiors. In deed, I would be asking either the Minister or the Regional Director whether their Officers are spending their time wisely.
> 
> Elogov, your cartoon is boring now, seen it too many times, go and find something more funny.


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

Ha ha yeah it's been around the forums a couple of times now, always manages to slip it's way into conversations at just the right time lol.


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> You said you were sure he knew about it, which implies that he was guilty by association, and indicates that you were more in the know than the top terrorist investigators in the world. For your info, ANYONE "could" have known about it, even me... your words, not mine.
> 
> I don't have an Uncle Bazza by t way, and how do you know exactly where the attacks were planned?
> 
> Jamie



I know anyone "could" have known about it, but investigators couldn't iterview everyone in the world. If had video evidence of someone stealing your snake, and had access to someone that the snake stealer was close to, would you be inclined to ask some random from your local woolies, or the person that has a chance of haven information?

The sim card of one of the offenders was found at the innocent guys unit, the offender was living with him. I think that's a justifiable reason to question the bloke, especially when terrorist attacks of such magnitude had taken place. People died, so yeah I don't mind that one bloke was detained for ten days while they tried to eliminate the possibility that he was involved. 

Also, you said to someone "you're not even dark skinned" what does skin colour have to do with terrorism? Look at Timothy Mcveigh and David Hicks....

As for how do I know it was planned in his house, it was reported that members of that group that were directly involved congregated there. 

Never EVER have I said in this thread that the bloke was DIRECTLY involved and deserved to be imprisoned for anything. I said detaining him while they checked him out for a period of ten days, whilst inconvenient to the bloke, was a decent decision in my opinion.

If a bomb went off down down the road from you and you found out that there were small suspicions, but not enough for anyone in power to be bothered acting upon, I bet you'd be furious. Tell me how a preemptive investigation isn't better than an investigation after 20,000 people get blown up. 

But I'm sorry, you're right. It may inconvenience someone for a few weeks while the authorities eliminate certain people from the equation. So let's just give everyone the benefit of the doubt even if there are reasonable suspicions and pick up the pieces when things go wrong.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> I know anyone "could" have known about it, but investigators couldn't iterview everyone in the world. If had video evidence of someone stealing your snake, and had access to someone that the snake stealer was close to, would you be inclined to ask some random from your local woolies, or the person that has a chance of haven information?
> 
> The sim card of one of the offenders was found at the innocent guys unit, the offender was living with him. I think that's a justifiable reason to question the bloke, especially when terrorist attacks of such magnitude had taken place. People died, so yeah I don't mind that one bloke was detained for ten days while they tried to eliminate the possibility that he was involved.
> 
> ...



After our recent PM conversation I am quite convinced you just love arguing, haha


----------



## Smithers (Sep 29, 2011)

Stop feeding the troll


----------



## maddog-1979 (Sep 29, 2011)

Smithers said:


> Stop feeding the troll



http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-lizards-5383/wild-monitor-170641/

here is a link to an APS thread which has some very good arguments for not feeding wild lace monitors....i believe it to be appropriate for troll feeding aswell.


----------



## longqi (Sep 29, 2011)

The presumption of innocence disappeared a long time ago
As soon as the Towers fell over the yanks introduced a law called rendition
Australia agreed to abide by that law then
Thats why Hicks never got Government support until years later
Rendition is still a law and still enforced
It basically means
Anyone at any time can be held without charge for any period and relocated to any country for questioning
That was the reasoning behind Guantanamo Bay because Cuba permits strong interrogation but USA doesnt
Exactly the same with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where the majority of the 'prisoners' seem to have died while trying to escape
A classic case is the Canadian DEA officer who was picked up at Heathrow
Held for 6 weeks before anyone checked out that he was Law
Interrogated pretty badly 
Lost four fingers and one eye and sued USA for $20,000,000
But lost because the interrogations were done in Bahrain if memory serves
USA denied all knowledge even though interrogators were USA military and he was flown to Bahrain by US military Aircraft

So we have to be very careful about 'reasonable suspicions'


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

maddog-1979 said:


> http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-lizards-5383/wild-monitor-170641/here is a link to an APS thread which has some very good arguments for not feeding wild lace monitors....i believe it to be appropriate for troll feeding aswell.



Gee, this really fits in, I hope Baden is on line, he wouldn't want to miss this.


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

KaotikJezta said:


> After our recent PM conversation I am quite convinced you just love arguing, haha



I agreed with everything you said in the pm, and nothing that I has said here contradicts that.

Brett, your posts are extremely well thought out and on point. I think you should consider publishing something, you're sure to gain a cult following of captivated readers.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Who is Brett? :shock: Is he a terrorist too?


----------



## Ramsayi (Sep 29, 2011)

What is this thread about?


----------



## longqi (Sep 29, 2011)

Micheal
Probably to the majority of the Aussie public we are all terrorists

After all
We play with icky snakey things


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Doesn't matter, just join is Rams, it's a great fun. Let that bug loose, see what happens.


----------



## starr9 (Sep 29, 2011)

can we use this pic now instead of the other?!?!


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

starr9 said:


> can we use this pic now instead of the other?!?!



gold!


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 29, 2011)

Not funny any more, time to get on with more serious stuff.

see ya.


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

You're pants look like my bathroom curtains LOL not kidding either :S.


----------



## Jackrabbit (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> While this is true, i have been down this road in court before. I have a very violent ex, who even after 4yrs & numerous protection orders, still continues to make calls to me that are very unpleasent. While i am legally not aloud to record these ph calls, on advice from my solictor i still do. As she has explained it to me, yes they will be dismissed in court, but they are still also heard, therefor still will help me prove that at least the mental/emotional abuse is still happening. I think its kind of 'once you hear it, u cant un hear it' so even after it dismissed, its still been heard!



If you can't legally record it, which surprises me since you are a party to the conversation, tell them it is being recorded up front. If they continue, then they are aware and you then have the right to continue recording or they can hang up. Problem solved

I understand you can't record a conversation between 2 people if you aren't a party to the conversation, it's called phone taping, but not being able to record your own phone conversations, really?


----------



## saximus (Sep 29, 2011)

Lol what a read! Gotta be one of the best off topic threads around at the moment. 
Baden I overheard people talking at the last expo I went to. They had very similar stories about DEC. May e they just expect that the bigger guys will be easier to catch because you guys have so much paperwork to do it's easier to make little slip ups


----------



## elogov (Sep 29, 2011)

Jackrabbit said:


> If you can't legally record it, which surprises me since you are a party to the conversation, tell them it is being recorded up front. If they continue, then they are aware and you then have the right to continue recording or they can hang up. Problem solved
> 
> I understand you can't record a conversation between 2 people if you aren't a party to the conversation, it's called phone taping, but not being able to record your own phone conversations, really?



I was told the same, If you have given them some precaution as to what the recording might & will be used for that it can therefore be brought in as evidence ?


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Jackrabbit said:


> If you can't legally record it, which surprises me since you are a party to the conversation, tell them it is being recorded up front. If they continue, then they are aware and you then have the right to continue recording or they can hang up. Problem solved
> 
> I understand you can't record a conversation between 2 people if you aren't a party to the conversation, it's called phone taping, but not being able to record your own phone conversations, really?



You're right, you can record your own conversations, but if you tell someone they're being recorded, then it's highly unlikely that they're going to continue to abuse you.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

elogov said:


> I was told the same, If you have given them some precaution as to what the recording might & will be used for that it can therefore be brought in as evidence ?


 


Jackrabbit said:


> If you can't legally record it, which surprises me since you are a party to the conversation, tell them it is being recorded up front. If they continue, then they are aware and you then have the right to continue recording or they can hang up. Problem solved
> 
> I understand you can't record a conversation between 2 people if you aren't a party to the conversation, it's called phone taping, but not being able to record your own phone conversations, really?



Im not responding to either, as it is off topic!  But when it comes to my legal advice i will stick with what the solictor tells me. As for 'just telling him he is being recorded', he has been told, many times, now i dont talk to him, he isnt meant to be calling me!


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

elogov said:


> I was told the same, If you have given them some precaution as to what the recording might & will be used for that it can therefore be brought in as evidence ?


​ 
Yes it can. But again, if someone knows they're being taped they're unlikely to do anything stupid.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Yes it can. But again, if someone knows they're being taped they're unlikely to do anything stupid.



Well normal people usually would stop........he isnt one of them though!


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Bel711 said:


> Well normal people usually would stop........he isnt one of them though!



Then use them in court  if he knows he's being taped then there's no issue.


----------



## Bel03 (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Then use them in court  if he knows he's being taped then there's no issue.



Its still not that simple unfortunately! But as was pointed out earlier, by someone who continued with the conversation mind you , its off the topic of the op........Anyway, this is just my life, & im ok!


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

Yeah well back on topic, I think it sucks that people can be relentlessly investigated for no apparent reason (unless they're possibly linked to cases of mass murder  ) but perhaps there should be some form of legislation introduced where every keeper gets a house call once every 5 years or something?


----------



## Jeffa (Sep 29, 2011)

In all honesty I sympathise with Baden and others that have been "targeted". I also believe that the EPA ect have actually busted alot of people with exotics and unlicenced reptiles.

Sure there are a few worms in the apple so to speak but at the end of the day if they are trying to protect our wildlife so be it. 

And no I have not had the priveledge of a knock at the door, and would not have anything to worry about if this occured.
Would be interesting to see how many corn, and other exotics get confiscated by the EPA.

Love you Waterrat but that pic is getting old also


----------



## smeejason (Sep 29, 2011)

Holy [email protected] there is 10 minutes i will never get back.
Back to topic 
Baden being a gov organization i think you are overlooking the lazy fact.
It is easier to audit a large breeder/keeper like yourself knowing that it will all turn out ok. way less paper work and to their boss they have kickin @rses and takin names..
I would say like all other government departments they get a pay rise per inspection and why not do it the easy way..


----------



## abnrmal91 (Sep 29, 2011)

Wow only about 2 pages actually apply to the original topic. Not in Qld but never had a visit, I just make sure all my paperwork is in order just in case. It seems highly unfair to be targeted for no apparent reason. Hope you can sort it out and they stop bothering you.


----------



## yommy (Sep 29, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Yeah well back on topic, I think it sucks that people can be relentlessly investigated for no apparent reason (unless they're possibly linked to cases of mass murder  )QUOTE]
> 
> Have you met Baden? He'd make a great serial killer, he gets my vote for the main part of wolf creek 2  i reckon he'd wreck your day if you were every found at his house uninvited or another reason for all the visit's is those attractive EPA girls that were at the GC expo might think his ruggedly handsome... food for thought... lol


----------



## Fantazmic (Sep 29, 2011)

Where is Baden ? He is being remarkably quiet !


----------



## Renenet (Sep 29, 2011)

Fantazmic said:


> Where is Baden ? He is being remarkably quiet !



The EPA must have spirited him away in the dead of night...


----------



## kawasakirider (Sep 29, 2011)

yommy said:


> kawasakirider said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah well back on topic, I think it sucks that people can be relentlessly investigated for no apparent reason (unless they're possibly linked to cases of mass murder  )QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## No-two (Sep 29, 2011)

Unlucky. 


Although I think the last thing you want to do is piss them off. If they want to inspect you twice a year, they're going to, they're the government.


----------



## DeadCricket (Sep 30, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Horrible thing to happen to that family, but I don't know if I'm completely against it. If the information was correct and an attack was potentially stopped then I say good job. I'd much rather have someone (even myself if it came down to it) to be harassed a little bit, rather than take a chance so we don't step on any delicate flowers toes and have a bomb go off. Since these new laws they raided residencies in Sydney and they've uncovered plans and materials for large scale bombs.
> 
> Think about that attack that happened in Norway or wherever it was, where that guy pumped rounds into school children and similtaneously blew up a building... If someone actually decided to raid him they would have found his plans, which were found after the fact. They had more than enough reason to, he purchased 5 tons of fertiliser....
> 
> ...


 

And they love to make you feel better about losing your freedom by making it seem neccisary. 
Here is how it works. You want freedom? You won't be safe.
You want safety? You won't be free.

Its all a huge game. The government profits off having their population in control and they ride a fine line to do just that.

Its too difficult to double quote on my phone but to whom ever mentioned Australia's 'free to do as you like' way of life, unfortunately you seem to have missed whats going on around you. I will use my industry as an example to show that we are in fact one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world.

As a manager in the hospitality industry, it often amuses me how many times a day I have to squiggle the little thing I tell people is my signature. Every time I give you money, money you won fairly on a pokie machine (that is controlled and monitored 24/7 in a government centre somewhere) I have to take your full name and signature, I'm also required by law to have you on camera, I also have to provide my full name, and signature and also a license number (which to obtain I was subject to history & security checks). All that for $50. If you win $500 its not enough to just have the above, I also must have another person (also subject to those checks) check that the transaction has been processed correctly. Then I have to keep that one slip of paper for YEARS. If your happen to win a jackpot and win $10,000 or more, then again the afore mentioned is not enough, I must also complete another direct notification to the government about your good fortune. Which is under the guise of possible money laundering and anti terrorism.

And that's just a payout, you should see the laws and responsibilities when I pour you a beer to go along with it. To manage a venue I hold 2 licenses and am required to have competed another 4 courses, which must be current (some to be renewed anually).


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 30, 2011)

Fantazmic said:


> Where is Baden ? He is being remarkably quiet !



He is in a church praying for this thread to be closed.


----------



## Greenmad (Sep 30, 2011)

yommy said:


> kawasakirider said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah well back on topic, I think it sucks that people can be relentlessly investigated for no apparent reason (unless they're possibly linked to cases of mass murder  )QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Ozzie Python (Sep 30, 2011)

had a few visits from DERM. one was a random audit of my paperwork when i down sized my collection which just happened to be at the same time i had a heap of hatchies ready for sale, perhaps because there was a lot of paperwork going into them over a short period they wanted to check out the conditions etc.

second visit was when i applied for a vens licence and they wanted to check my herp room and enclosures were escape proof and lockable in the case of an elapid getting out. 

had no issues with them coming in as i follow the rules and have everything in order. both times they contacted me and asked for a suitable time they could come in and see me.

and i have to admit both the girls were a pleasant treat for my eyes, my wife even got a little jealous that i went in the house with them


----------



## LadyJ (Oct 1, 2011)

I've had one when a pair of bearded dragon were literally dropped on my doorstep and I did the right thing and informed DSE, requesting to get them on licence. Of course I heard nothing for 3+ months then one day I'm at my boyfriend's and they call up saying they're taking them away to be destroyed! Just brilliant... I found them very difficult to deal with, especially considering how emotional I was. They've said they'd keep a close eye on my but I've since had nothing happen.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Oct 1, 2011)

Visits seem a little tame in QLD these days. I remember the old days well, setting fire to the fauna record book, punchs thrown, lounge room wrestling, assault charges and jail. Mind you , the fauna police back then were a different and seperate unit to the QLD DEC.


----------



## graphitebeans (Oct 1, 2011)

Hey all - interesting thread. 
I've only had my license for 2 years now but the only contact DERM has had with me was after I emailed them to let them know my new address.


Cat


----------



## Morgan_dragon (Oct 5, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> If you don't have a warrant to record someone without their knowledge and then you go ahead and record them without informing them, it's inadmissible in court.



So then stipulate that if they wish to enter your premises you will be recording it.....we have just had all new security put through our place to help protect our collection and if they turn up here they would be more then welcome to check our lot out but be told to smile for the camera's that are recording everything.



Waterrat said:


> Random or prearranged inspections are OK with most of us who feel they have nothing to hide and as long as the officers are polite and reasonably intelligent, it's cool to go through the process. However, whet it comes to what Baden is experiencing, it's another matter and I would certainly be writing a letter to the Regional Director outlining the unacceptable conduct of the particular officers and demanding reasons why such frequent inspections are necessary.
> That would be my first step.



I wonder if he would get a polite letter and then another visit? Or his next MA declined? People that think they have power can be very petty when they think that is threatened...



smeejason said:


> Holy [email protected] there is 10 minutes i will never get back.
> Back to topic
> Baden being a gov organization i think you are overlooking the lazy fact.
> It is easier to audit a large breeder/keeper like yourself knowing that it will all turn out ok. way less paper work and to their boss they have kickin @rses and takin names..
> I would say like all other government departments they get a pay rise per inspection and why not do it the easy way..



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------

