Roseclipt Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 http://www.rspcansw.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/46230/RSPCA_Media_Release_-_Animal_Cruelty_Charges_Windsor_Local_Court.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allerzeit Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 ANIMAL CRUELTY CHARGES – WINDSOR LOCAL COURTMrs Carol Dixon of Glossodia appeared for sentencing at Windsor Local Court on Friday 28 October 2011. She had pleaded guilty to nine charges of animal cruelty at an earlier Court appearance. The charges involved thirty animals and included seven counts of failing to provide veterinary treatment, one count of failing to provide proper and sufficient food to nine cats, and one count of failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent an act of cruelty pertaining to the matted coats of thirteen dogs. On 21 April 2011 an RSPCA Inspector responded to a complaint about numerous animals kept in poor conditions on the Glossodia property. The Inspector issued instructions relating to grooming, worming and flea treatment for all dogs, and for cleaning of all animal enclosures. The Inspector returned on 27 May 2011 to find that Mrs Dixon, a breeder of both dogs and cats, had not complied with these instructions. Thirteen dogs and seventeen cats (including two deceased cats) were subsequently seized. All thirteen dogs had matted coats and whipworm infestations. Seven dogs had significant dental disease and five had ear infections. Nine of the cats were assessed as not having received proper and sufficient food for at least two weeks. Eight cats had ear infections caused by ear mites. Seven cats were suffering cat flu. Four cats had dental disease and two had ulcerative wounds on their hind limbs. Mrs Dixon was convicted and placed on a Section 9 good behaviour bond for twelve months. She was ordered to pay $81 Court costs and $31,779.83 veterinary/boarding costs for the thirty animals. The Magistrate also issued a Court Order prohibiting Mrs Dixon from owning animals for five years. All charges are under NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyrottie Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 why do so many people take on what they can't handle? i know circumstances may change at any time (you may get ill, people get older and can't look after them, lack of money etc.) but then do the right thing and see what can be done for the proper welfare of your animals by someone else, a shelter or whatever. hearing, reading and seeing these stories both on the news and on those animal rescue shows on tv makes me so god damn furious i cannot handle any type of animal cruelty and in my opinion i think their punishments are way too bloody weak! they should be abused, tortured or neglected like they do to their animals to show them how it feels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Was Mrs Dixon a registered (in the pedigree sense) breeder? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Was Mrs Dixon a registered (in the pedigree sense) breeder? Anyone know? Ive no doubt that is she were a breeder - ever- it would have been part of the reporting. Looks like a straight out case of hoarding to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lhok Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 ANIMAL CRUELTY CHARGES – WINDSOR LOCAL COURTMrs Carol Dixon of Glossodia appeared for sentencing at Windsor Local Court on Friday 28 October 2011. She had pleaded guilty to nine charges of animal cruelty at an earlier Court appearance. The charges involved thirty animals and included seven counts of failing to provide veterinary treatment, one count of failing to provide proper and sufficient food to nine cats, and one count of failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent an act of cruelty pertaining to the matted coats of thirteen dogs. On 21 April 2011 an RSPCA Inspector responded to a complaint about numerous animals kept in poor conditions on the Glossodia property. The Inspector issued instructions relating to grooming, worming and flea treatment for all dogs, and for cleaning of all animal enclosures. The Inspector returned on 27 May 2011 to find that Mrs Dixon, a breeder of both dogs and cats, had not complied with these instructions. Thirteen dogs and seventeen cats (including two deceased cats) were subsequently seized. All thirteen dogs had matted coats and whipworm infestations. Seven dogs had significant dental disease and five had ear infections. Nine of the cats were assessed as not having received proper and sufficient food for at least two weeks. Eight cats had ear infections caused by ear mites. Seven cats were suffering cat flu. Four cats had dental disease and two had ulcerative wounds on their hind limbs. Mrs Dixon was convicted and placed on a Section 9 good behaviour bond for twelve months. She was ordered to pay $81 Court costs and $31,779.83 veterinary/boarding costs for the thirty animals. The Magistrate also issued a Court Order prohibiting Mrs Dixon from owning animals for five years. All charges are under NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Regulations Apparently she was a breeder --Lhok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 ah well there you go. Not a very good one apparently.Good to see they can prosecute and get the job done without the need of more laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Danni Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I Googled her. She bred Cats and apparently ran a boarding kennel and cattery God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Apparently she was a breeder --Lhok Yes, the photo in the RSPCA's article indicates that one dog was an " ...ese x" Are those are the types of dogs that are sold in pet shops sometimes ....? Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimiss Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Sometimes? In the case of the Pets Parasites.. sorry, 'Paradise' near my work they always have '_ese X _' or 'oodles' Grr. Glad this one got caught. One small step for mankind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roseclipt Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 She seems to have bred many crossbreds - her ads. are on something called "buyandsell" in different capital cities. I don't understand why, if a court order was issued against ownership for 5 years, there are still animals on the property, according to her neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 bloody lowlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 She still has animals advertised for sale! How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 She still has animals advertised for sale! How? She sure does. Date listed 03/10/2011 Expiry date 02/12/2011 Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopy Lola Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 She still has animals advertised for sale! How? She sure does. Date listed 03/10/2011 Expiry date 02/12/2011 Go figure If she is like a well known dodgy bybreeder over here , they move alot of their pups to another property when they know they are being raided or given time to downsize and just sell them from there under the friend or relations name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 If she is like a well known dodgy bybreeder over here , they move alot of their pups to another property when they know they are being raided or given time to downsize and just sell them from there under the friend or relations name When I lived in WA kennel zone I always found it amusing, in a negative way, that the Rangers gave you advance notice of inspections, and that a lot of people who were cheating in one way or another, moved their dogs around before the annual inspection. Not blaming anyone. But it's hard to administer regulations. The Rangers are always given too much to do. They tend to do what they can to make it simple. If they don't announce inspections they hit a lot of people who are not home when they come, and get a lot of complaints. Many of them are also charged with inspection verge management, fire breaks, and gawd only knows what else. Turnover it high in the Ranger job. If government is not resourced to do a job properly, it often does a crap job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Looks like the ad was placed 3 weeks prior to the conviction so I guess we shouldn't jump to conclusions. But at the least it implies she was still selling and breeding after she was charged. Surely they can put conditions of bail on to prevent them being in charge of animals until the court case. But again - perhaps she was selling them for someone else and Im assuming more than I should. I would like to see the chain followed through. How many has she bred and how many sold and how she sold them and who she sold them to. Clearly one method she has used is via an ad as Souff has posted but Id be interested to know these details which may be able to be used to demonstrate where animals which come from places like this are distributed. If she hasn't got these details to give to the RSPCA she is in breach of the law anyway and could be pinged for that too. As she has been given directions and has been offered a way to avoid the charges and not done anything to clean up her act between visits - or worse if she has and it was worse than this to start with that speaks volumes for me too. I hope there is some method of checking she doesn't get the chance to make animals suffer like this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I would think that the selling of the current dogs would be legal enough ... but ... I guess, for some, when the RSPCA siezes the poor dilapidated dogs that are at your home ... and they don't know about dogs or pups that are stashed elsewhere, well I suppose life just goes on until they come knockin' again Sigh. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopy Lola Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I would think that the selling of the current dogs would be legal enough ... but ... I guess, for some, when the RSPCA siezes the poor dilapidated dogs that are at your home ... and they don't know about dogs or pups that are stashed elsewhere, well I suppose life just goes on until they come knockin' again Sigh. Souff Yes .....exactly ......then it's business as usual ;) Infact we know some that pretend to be complying with rangers orders but actually use this as an opportunity to offload their breeding stock that are of no further use to them onto local rescues and the pound 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