Melbourne Woman Defies Council Orders To Give Up 11 Of Her 23 Pets

[Maddy]

Melbourne woman Jennifer Martin defies council orders to give up 11 of her 23 pets

http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freaky/jennifer-martin-is-11-pets-over-the-pet-limit-but-shes-not-giving-them-up/story-e6frflri-1226072155444

WOMAN who shares her house with 23 cats and dogs is fighting council demands she get rid of half of her menagerie.

Invalid pensioner Jennifer Martin has 11 more pets than she is allowed under Whittlesea local council animal laws in north Melbourne.

But she said her pets were her family and it would break her heart to part from any of them.

"These animals have been taken in by me and some of them have taken three or four years to socialise," Ms Martin said.

"Why would anyone think of taking them from me when we are family. All this worry has stressed and heart-broken me."

Ms Martin, 55, claims she has more than enough money, room and love to go around. Since her own home burned down in January, she has been living with a friend.

"We have seven dogs each in our own names and there are another nine cats," she said.

"I have already given away a few but the rest are my family and they are not going anywhere."

Refusing offers from an animal shelter to help the cats and dogs find new homes, Ms Martin instead hopes the public will pay $25,000 in boarding fees.

Whittlesea Council bylaws allow a maximum of four animal species per property.

The council has threatened to take her to court because the number of animals at her property poses a health risk.

Local laws manager Wayne Bullock said the council had tried to work with Ms Martin to reach a compromise.

"In this instance we have concerns over animal welfare as well as health concerns for the property occupants," he said.

"Due to these concerns, council has invited and has been accompanied by representatives of the RSPCA on a site visit to this property. Further assistance from the RSPCA may be sought."

But Ms Martin isn't giving in. "They are my pets and my family and I'm not giving them up for anyone."

It's not an especially interesting story or anything but this bit did stand out to me..

Ms Martin instead hopes the public will pay $25,000 in boarding fees

[Guest sharynriding]

That is the bit that stood out for me too!!!

[HazyWal]

Yep,had a little WTF moment myself!

[chevorne]

Leave the old girl alone, the dogs are only little, and she looks a few roo's short in the top paddock.

Is the $25 grand so she can rotate dogs from home to kennels?

[Maddy]

Leave the old girl alone, the dogs are only little, and she looks a few roo's short in the top paddock.

Is the $25 grand so she can rotate dogs from home to kennels?

Is it fair though to allow certain people to break laws based on just their age or the size of their dogs?

My dogs may be large but they bark far less frequently than other dogs in the neighbourhood (most of which are little dogs), size doesn't have much to do with how a dog affects the people in the surrounding area, it's the management of the dogs.

That aside.. she's only 55, hardly ancient ;)

I'm assuming the money is for boarding but that brings up another point- what kind of life is she offering these dogs if they're spending upwards of 50% of their time in a kennel, away from her? To me, it reads more like she's stubborn and selfish, not that she's a caring pet owner who just wants to keep her pets with her

Edit, typo

Edited July 4, 2011 by Hardy's Angel

[HazyWal]

To me this sounds like she has gone from having a few family pets to hoarding.I'm sorry for me it does pose a health risk not only to the people but to the animals.As an invalid pensioner how would she afford even the most basic of food and medical costs.Ok she may have plenty of money saved in the bank but if she does why ask the public to cover boarding fees,and what sort of life is that for the animals?Sorry but the whole thing stinks to me.

[pebbles]

The way I read it is that the lady's house burned down and she is living with a friend. If her house is going to be rebuilt then she would be over the limit of dogs by three and there's one odd cat if the lady she is with owns four.

I see there's a maximum of 4 of each species to a property but if it's only temporary then I'd be on her side. JMHO.

[john.davey.1960]

Typical uncaring council in my view in league with this country's greatest companion animal killers. Where's the the proof the dogs are suffering? None quoted so I suspect there is none.

[gwenneth1]

I guess there's a lot of "...depends upon...". Eg, Depends upon the state of her (now burned down property)-kept clean, good fencing ec; the condition and care the animals receive; nuisance barking etc etc... to whether it is out of control hoarding and neglected animals or not.

So does she own seven dogs and nine cats and her friend own the other seven dogs and remaining cats?..... (and is this short term accommodation or not...)

Interestingly, I have many times seen registered pedigreed dog breeders have 14 dogs and more, many of those with fine reputations and quality dogs, as well as the obligatory pet cats; goat or pig, two horses to a herd and livestock esp if in a rural setting or does Council allow registered breeders to have more than the mandatory amount?

Edited July 7, 2011 by gwenneth1

[Maddy]

Typical uncaring council in my view in league with this country's greatest companion animal killers. Where's the the proof the dogs are suffering? None quoted so I suspect there is none.

I don't think anyone is saying that her animals are suffering.

Animals do not have to suffer for an amount of animals in care to be inappropriate.