Jump to content

In Court. Parakie puppy farm


persephone
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

CORRECT LINK

 

A Murray Mallee woman accused of keeping 300 dogs in squalid conditions on a puppy farm has told an Adelaide court the animals' maintenance was her ex-partner's responsibility.

Key points:

  • Kerrie Fitzpatrick is on trial accused of animal cruelty offences
  • She told the Adelaide Magistrates Court that she was not responsible for caring for the dogs
  • The RSPCA told the court that inspectors found dead rats in the kennels
 

Kerrie Fitzpatrick, 45, is charged with animal cruelty offences including ill-treating an animal and failing to comply with animal welfare notices in 2018.

She and her former partner Colin Ross were allegedly found in possession of over 300 animals during an RSPCA inspection in October 2018, despite the local council permitting the breeders to own no more than 100.

Edited by persephone
put in workable link
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

surely there was more to be commented on than finding "dead rats"  ????????????

 

any dog would kill a rat, snake, mouse that showed up ?

 

as for the number of dogs, incredible.

 

Although to be realistic, As my vet conceded over ten years ago now, (and he HATES puppy farming) it was getting down to the wire then he believed, we will be needing the legal puppy farms will have to be that big or bigger to take up the slack for the hundreds of thousands of puppies that sure are never going to be available from the registered breeders who are not allowed to breed for the pet market.

 

 

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 dogs would need a decent team of staff to care for to the minimum welfare standards. If done properly, it is not unfeasible... technically...

 

One would be concerned about dead rats in kennels if they had been poisoned by rat baits... the possibility of a dog ingesting a poisoned one would be a major health risk.

 

asal makes a point regarding the fact that commercial breeding may be needed to service demand for pets if AJP proposed legislation is passed.

 

The AR nutters don't seem to understand that the vast majority of pets found in pounds and shelters are NOT typically those bred by registered purebred breeders or even commercial breeders... overwhelmingly they are the unregistered and unchipped products of the backyard breeding "industry". Current AND proposed legislation does little to address that particular issue, even when advised of that fact by those tasked with policing that legislation. Another case of politicians needing to be seen "doing something" to address an issue, but failing to understand exactly what the issue is.

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

 

The AR nutters don't seem to understand that the vast majority of pets found in pounds and shelters are NOT typically those bred by registered purebred breeders or even commercial breeders... overwhelmingly they are the unregistered and unchipped products of the backyard breeding "industry". Current AND proposed legislation does little to address that particular issue, even when advised of that fact by those tasked with policing that legislation. Another case of politicians needing to be seen "doing something" to address an issue, but failing to understand exactly what the issue is.

 

T.

 

I don't disagree with any of the points you have raised. All very valid. 

I think its more complex than that though, and essential that its not made any more difficult to breed your own dogs with out joining a registry or doing it commercially. For the basic reason that breeding for your own 'backyard' (subjectively) is the foundation of the breeds and domestic dogs in general. If that foundations lost, we will loose Domestic dogs for all but t he most wealthy. No ifs, buts or maybes. Its inevitable with out that foundation to stand on.

 

The near universal breeding of dogs to suit our own needs and environments, purposes etc is the only reason we have Domestic dogs that suit and can adapt to so many varied Human environments. We will lose that ability in our dogs, bit by bit, till theres nothing left and the costs and drawbacks of keeping dogs is too much to be a worth while consideration.

 

'Back yard' breeding absolutely needs to be done much better though,  with much more thought and consideration. Rather than trying to stop byb we would all be better served in promoting the expectation that is done with thought and consideration.

 

The last thing we need is a black market in dogs, yet legislation so far is increasing that likelyhood. Partly though the rising costs of dogs associated with meeting legislative demands. Reducing those able to breed makes commercialization of breeding inevitable to meet demand. Inevitable that those undertaking breeding will be far less likely to have any knowledge or real life experience of how to do it or what it entails.

 

If the idea is greater responsibility taken,  its not going to be achieved by reducing our abilities to respond. That can only cause the opposite.

Rather than making it harder, any legislation should be to make it easier to do do better, and promote the expectation that it will. The best start would be to reduce the cost of registering entire dogs, but demanding publicly available genetic testing for entires. That means any one with an entire by choice dog has the means to understand the most basic basic requirement of breeding- Some understanding of they have in front of them. Buyers also have that available. Both would quickly understand the importance of using that information. We would be promoting that expectation. It would be the 1st step to promote real responsibility. The only thing we are promoting so far is reduction. If that doesn't stop there is only one end. 

And a likely gain for Pure bred Pedigrees as well, with that understanding. Win win instead of loose loose.

 

The increasing costs of buying a dog are only going to encourage breeding as a profit venture with less experience and understanding to do it well.. You only have to look at the huge demand of 'covid' dogs and the fall out happening now on Gumtree with supply now rapidly out stripping demand. 

Not the fault of Gumtree, but poor and unknowledgable choices made. Gumtree just provides a good window to see what IS going on.

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

has that only just gone to court?

 

gee no mention of the fact ALL the dogs they didnt take had been given to rescues and all successfully rehomed.  Despite the fact they had applied to the court to not only kill the dogs they took but to get a court order to seize all the rest of them, so lucky for the remaining dogs they went to the rescue before the rspca could get them and put them down too. absolute disaster for the rspca's assertion none of them could be safely rehomed. Nor would they let any they had go to the rescues to see if they could rehome them as successfuly as the others they had, public relations disaster

 

only the rspca had problems with the dogs they took,  remember the link.

 

the rescue or rescues. forget if it was one or more begged the rspca to let them retrain the ones they wanted to kill.  at the time they seized them on the grounds they would not make eye contact with the inspector. it was on tape. 

 

Found the link

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...