Steve Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 How truly sad - lets hope the poor woman was able to find a new home too. Why didnt they just help her so she can still be with her animals? If anyone ever sees anything like this please contact pacers before the RSPCA. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...-with-pets.html <H2 class=padding-bottom-7 style="FONT-SIZE: 1.05em; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.05em">A WOMAN who lived in her car with 23 PETS has been fined for animal cruelty. </H2>Carol Lynette Samuels, 66, said she was a successful cat breeder but had fallen on tough financial difficulties. The Aussie claimed she was forced to leave her $1.5million luxury mansion and had no choice but to move into her car with all her pets, which she considered her "children". An RSPCA inspector found Samuels and her pets — 12 cats and 11 dogs — in the underground car park of a shopping centre last September after a complaint was made. Malnourished The animal inspector told Southport Magistrates Court in Queensland's Gold Coast, that the inside of the car stank of ammonia. He found 11-long haired Persian cats and a Himalayan cat inside seven cages on the back seat of her car as well as nine Pomeranian dogs and two poodles beside the car. The RSPCA seized the animals but one cat had to be put down. Vets said the cats were malnourished, had matted fur, fleas and cat flu. Samuels pleaded guilty to nine counts of breaching the Animal Care and Protection Act by failing her duty of care to feed, clean and provide adequate shelter for the cats. She said: "I'd lost an awful lot and a didn't want to lose my cats as well because they are the only family I've got." Magistrate Michael Hogan fined her $4,000 and ordered her to give the RSPCA $5,000 for veterinary care and to pay $73.80 in court costs. Gold Coast RSPCA inspector Sommer Heath-Crilley said the decision would allow the RSPCA to find new, healthy homes for the cats. She said outside court: "The RSPCA is very happy with the outcome. "It's been a long process for us but hopefully from here on in we're able to find new homes for the cats." Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...l#ixzz0iYzlPcZG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Whatever happened to "prevention of cruelty" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceilidh Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) The Aussie claimed she was forced to leave her $1.5million luxury mansion and had no choice but to move into her car with all her pets, which she considered her "children". Magistrate Michael Hogan fined her $4,000 and ordered her to give the RSPCA $5,000 for veterinary care and to pay $73.80 in court costs. OK, so this REALLY makes sense doesn't it, the woman has lost everything and has been forced to live in her car. Now she has to pay these fines! What does she have to do? Sell the car and live under a bridge? Yep, makes real sense. Edited for typo. Edited March 18, 2010 by Ceilidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Totally disgusting! WTF is a fine going to achive!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liebhunde Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Once again the RSPCA shows its true colours...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoilt lab lives here Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Poor woman! She will probably go bankrupt if she hasnt already on top of losing her animals and the fines they want her to pay. Rediculous! The last organisaton I would call would be the RSPCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howl Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Once again the RSPCA shows its true colours...... And you make your judgement from a few lines in a newspaper... 23 animals, living in their own faceces and urine, crammed in one car together for weeks on end. Skin scalded from ammonia, infested with ringworm and fleas, dehydrated, getting no light, no fresh air, no room to turn, hardly any food. Oh but the poor woman had lost her money and had nowhere to live - and that makes it all ok I suppose? And remember, the magistrate is the one that makes the decision on whether to impose a penalty and how much. And the magistrate does consider the circumstances of the defendent. And that she has the option to perform community service instead of paying money. The RSPCA has treated the cats, brought them back to health and is trying to rehome them. Can I just ask all the RSPCA bashers out there - if it had been the police that had charged this woman, what would you have said then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam the man Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The Aussie claimed she was forced to leave her $1.5million luxury mansion and had no choice but to move into her car with all her pets, which she considered her "children". ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Theres no doubt 23 animals in a car is no place for animals, and should have been removed from that situation, but what the heck is fining someone 4 gand plus 5 grand towards the RSPCA when they more than likely dont have 2 bob to rub together given she is living in a car going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Once again the RSPCA shows its true colours...... And you make your judgement from a few lines in a newspaper... 23 animals, living in their own faceces and urine, crammed in one car together for weeks on end. Skin scalded from ammonia, infested with ringworm and fleas, dehydrated, getting no light, no fresh air, no room to turn, hardly any food. Oh but the poor woman had lost her money and had nowhere to live - and that makes it all ok I suppose? And remember, the magistrate is the one that makes the decision on whether to impose a penalty and how much. And the magistrate does consider the circumstances of the defendent. And that she has the option to perform community service instead of paying money. The RSPCA has treated the cats, brought them back to health and is trying to rehome them. Can I just ask all the RSPCA bashers out there - if it had been the police that had charged this woman, what would you have said then? Rather than help the poor woman the R$PCA took her "children". You can guarantee these denizens of animal rights will either kill most of these poor animals or more likely killed others so they could shelter them and bathe in the glory of destroying someone with obvious mental problems on top of her other problems. In my considered opinion when it's no longer possible to distinguish the abusers from the enforcers, it's time for a new organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Rather than help the poor woman the R$PCA took her "children". You can guarantee these denizens of animal rights will either kill most of these poor animals or more likely killed others so they could shelter them and bathe in the glory of destroying someone with obvious mental problems on top of her other problems. In my considered opinion when it's no longer possible to distinguish the abusers from the enforcers, it's time for a new organisation. :rolleyes: And if someone was forcing their human children to live in similar conditions the situation would be just as socially unacceptable. There is such limited information provided here about this matter but some people can still jump to immediate conclusions. To have a considered opinion you need to actually consider facts, and all of them. They are not all presented here by a long stretch. For someone to keep animals for their own reasons when that keeping amounts to cruelty is selfish and wrong, no matter what the emotional attachment to them is. If someone wants animals so badly that they are prepared to compromise those animals' health to the point of them dying there is a major issue at stake, and it's not with the prosecuting authority or with the courts, it's with the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Baggins Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Rather than help the poor woman the R$PCA took her "children". You can guarantee these denizens of animal rights will either kill most of these poor animals or more likely killed others so they could shelter them and bathe in the glory of destroying someone with obvious mental problems on top of her other problems. In my considered opinion when it's no longer possible to distinguish the abusers from the enforcers, it's time for a new organisation. :rolleyes: And if someone was forcing their human children to live in similar conditions the situation would be just as socially unacceptable. There is such limited information provided here about this matter but some people can still jump to immediate conclusions. To have a considered opinion you need to actually consider facts, and all of them. They are not all presented here by a long stretch. For someone to keep animals for their own reasons when that keeping amounts to cruelty is selfish and wrong, no matter what the emotional attachment to them is. If someone wants animals so badly that they are prepared to compromise those animals' health to the point of them dying there is a major issue at stake, and it's not with the prosecuting authority or with the courts, it's with the owner. But here is the thing. If it was human kids they would be returned to her with all the help under the sun. Because is animals they are removed from her care forever and she has to pay for the privilege of them doing so. ;) If the arsepca really cared they would help the woman care for her animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) I notice the RSPCA will call out the fire brigade to get a cat which wont come out from under a house, and will get a cherry picker to get a bat from a tree ......... which their, or our public resources pay for. But they only do that for the TV, apparently. Someone who is down on their luck is a good target. It would appear that it would be more socially acceptable for the RSPCA to take the cats, help the woman out, and return them to her once she had sorted our her life. This is not a lot of cats for someone who has a house. People's circumstances change. Magistrate Michael Hogan fined her $4,000 and ordered her to give the RSPCA $5,000 for veterinary care and to pay $73.80 in court costs. She obviously wont have that money, so she will go to jail. I suppose at least she will have a roof and food for a while. Or more likely, they will garnishee her pension, and she wont be able to live at all. the alternative would have been to surrender those cats to the RSPCA t o care for until she got on her feet, but at the exorbitant rates they charge, no one could afford it. And you can't do that anyhow, they knock them off. and of course, all the cats will be put down now. 90% of purebred cats in catteries have cat flu. Cat flu is not a death sentence. All we have to go on is the newspaper report, so we can only discuss that. But, a corollory is the old gentleman on Brisbane's southern side who featured on Animal Rescue some years ago. He had a lot of cats - stray cats who had wandered onto his property. He was feeding them. They showed them on TV. All looked in pretty good condition, lounging around outside, full of mince and fish, and sunning themselves. RSPCA took them away - 99% were "too sick" to be rehomed,lots had cat flu. They didn't look too sic when the TV footage was taken, so I can only presume that they got sick at the refuge, or like Clifford, there was nothing wrong with them, but they were euthanased anyhow. Despite the fact that they were not cats the old gentleman had sourced, but cats which had wandered onto his property, he was fined quite a lot of money. He cried when they took the cats. They lost me right there. Their attitude to BSL hardened my feelings for them. I used to take in stray cats too -- they'd wander in after some &*^%& dumped them. They weren't doing any harm, and I was happy to feed them - because they would have starved otherwise. Homes were impossible to come by. So they lived out their lives, warm, well fed, and nabbing the occasional mouse. Some migrated inside the house. Not after seeing that program on TV. No way. What;s wrong with them doing what they advertise they do, and actually HELP people in need??? More profit in nabbing the animals and fining the poor bloody owners. And yes, the human children would be returned. Edited March 21, 2010 by Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugUrPup Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Poor woman, poor cats shame on the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolatelover Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) I "love" my dogs and if this is how I was forced to live I would do everything in my power to find them a decent home. IMO the human emotion of simply "loving" our pets is overrated - we need to meet their physical, emotional and social needs as well as loving them. Otherwise it's just not "love". Easy to blame the RSPCA but the courts obviously agreed - maybe they had all the facts though. ETA Yes human children are often returned but sometimes only to be subject to similar abuse and neglect. They then end up in the system once again - then people jump on DOCS for returning them. Who can win. Edited March 21, 2010 by Chocolatelover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugUrPup Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 If only with mental health system got their shize together this woman would have been getting the help she obviously needed and the cats would have got the care they needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I "love" my dogs and if this is how I was forced to live I would do everything in my power to find them a decent home. IMO the human emotion of simply "loving" our pets is overrated - we need to meet their physical, emotional and social needs as well as loving them. Otherwise it's just not "love".Easy to blame the RSPCA but the courts obviously agreed - maybe they had all the facts though. ETA Yes human children are often returned but sometimes only to be subject to similar abuse and neglect. They then end up in the system once again - then people jump on DOCS for returning them. Who can win. Killing animals to save them, yep the R$PCA really love animals. Sounds more like something out of 1930s Germany's euthanasia program of the mentally ill. Perhaps the court had the facts or were just biased against the mentally ill. Guess we'll never really know for sure as the political appointees sorry judges are beyond accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) I "love" my dogs and if this is how I was forced to live I would do everything in my power to find them a decent home. Then you could pop on DOL and everyone would beat you up for rehoming your pets The thing is RSPCA could have helped this woman and her pets if the chosen to, but they didn't. This woman has now lost everything in her life, everything that mattered to her is gone. I certainly hope that someone is now helping her to deal with that loss. Edited March 21, 2010 by Crisovar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolatelover Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) Does anyone know of another link to further details of the story. I am not sure where the link to mental illness comes in. All I can read is that she was a "successful" cat breeder and has lost her 1.5 million dollar home. And I also read that the RSPCA had to put one cat down but was rehoming the others. So feel like I am missing another bit of the story Yes Crisovar - agree about the flaming I have never really understood that line of thinking though. I figure if someone is willing to give up their pet so easily, the chances are it probably doesn't have such a great life and will hopefully get a better one if they put some effort into rehoming. And if someone truly loves their animal and can't provide it with the life it deserves then they do a brave thing by rehoming. Just my opinion though - I know many (all?) will disagree with me :D Having said that - definitely don't condone dumping their pet on the doors of the pound where you will never know it's fate. Anyway, I think the animals need a voice and while it's great she loved them and sad she is suffering, just don't believe the animals deserve to live like this - I'm sure it wouldn't be their choice. We seem to care more about the gratification humans get from "their children" than the life the animal is subject to. Plus I don't see how anyone can can give 23 animals the time and attention they deserve. Edited March 21, 2010 by Chocolatelover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koemi Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 No mention at all of the 12 dogs? Poor lady. What an awful situation. I can't imagine how terrible it would be to have to live in my car. I sincerely hope I never need to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now