Puppy Farmers Beat Appeal

[Steve]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/dogs-seized-in-puppy-farm-raid-court-told/story-e6freoof-1226287096375

RSPCA and animal protection officers seized 246 dogs in the first prosecution of a commercial puppy breeding business in Queensland, a court heard yesterday.

Authorities were in the District Court appealing the sentences handed to Ruth and Kenneth Schloss in the Magistrates Court last May.

Ruth Schloss, 55, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals, one charge of breaching her duty of care to animals and one charge of failing to comply with an animal welfare direction without reasonable excuse.

Kenneth Schloss,63, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals and one charge of breaching his duty of care to animals.

Ruth Schloss was fined a total of $9000 and ordered to pay $10,000 compensation, no convictions were recorded and a prohibition order was made that she not acquire any dog for a year or more than three dogs for two years.

Kenneth Schloss was fined a total of $6000 and ordered to pay $10,000 compensation. No convictions were recorded and similar prohibition orders were made against him.

The appeal was on the grounds of appeal the magistrate erred in fact in finding that not all of the dogs, seized were subject of the charges and the sentences were manifestly inadequate.

It was alleged the magistrate placed too much weight on the circumstances of the couple, and too little weight on general deterrence and the injury caused to the animals.

The court heard the husband and wife ran a dog breeding business named "K and R Puppies" near Kingaroy in the Burnett region.

In September 2009, a search warrant was executed on their property, following which 246 dogs were seized and taken into the care of the RSPCA.

The search and seizure of the dogs was a complicated and expensive exercise. The RSPCA set up a temporary veterinary triage and processing centre and the operation lasted three days.

Five dogs were sent away for emergency veterinary treatment and two died.

The cruelty to animals charges were in relation to 14 particular dogs. The animals were caused pain due to the couple failing to seek or provide appropriate treatment for their veterinary conditions.

They were also alleged to have failed to provide treatment with respect to particular dogs for dental disease and ear infection or control of parasites, particularly fleas and ticks.

The couple were also alleged to failed to provide appropriate accommodation or living conditions with respect to all of the dogs.

The court heard originally dairy farmers the couple bred dogs as well and this business gradually grew.

They found themselves with 246 dogs, the breeding enterprise was too much for them to manage properly.

After examining the couple's finances and the magistrate's reasons, Judge Bradley dismissed the appeal to increase the penalties.

"This is a case of disturbing cruelty to animals, the couple grossly breached their duty of care. The conditions demonstrated on the video are most concerning, and the evidence of the suffering of particular dogs is distressing.

"This is apparently the first prosecution in Queensland of persons involved in a commercial dog breeding enterprise. Clearly, general deterrence is an important factor.

"It was a commercial enterprise, and the number of dogs involved is quite shocking," Judge Bradley said.

She said, however, it was a case of neglect rather than deliberate cruelty, and the breeding and sale of the puppies was engaged in more out of need than greed.

[Tralee]

RSPCA and animal protection officers seized 246 dogs in the first prosecution of a commercial puppy breeding business in Queensland, a court heard yesterday.

Authorities were in the District Court appealing the sentences handed to Ruth and Kenneth Schloss in the Magistrates Court last May.

Ruth Schloss, 55, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals, one charge of breaching her duty of care to animals and one charge of failing to comply with an animal welfare direction without reasonable excuse.

Kenneth Schloss,63, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals and one charge of breaching his duty of care to animals.

The appeal was on the grounds of appeal the magistrate erred in fact in finding that not all of the dogs, seized were subject of the charges and the sentences were manifestly inadequate.

It was alleged the magistrate placed too much weight on the circumstances of the couple, and too little weight on general deterrence and the injury caused to the animals.

After examining the couple's finances and the magistrate's reasons, Judge Bradley dismissed the appeal to increase the penalties.

She said, however, it was a case of neglect rather than deliberate cruelty, and the breeding and sale of the puppies was engaged in more out of need than greed.

Thanks Steve. :)

Another couple of peanuts from Kingaroy.

They had one running the State not long ago.

This is a good result and the Judges last reported comment would seem to contradict the finding and the action taken until we consider it in the context of "Beak of the Week."

Judges often make erudite quips at the end of hearings that are designed to shock and stagger.

Neglect is cruelty and the finacnces of the couple obviously do not support a defence economic neglect or ommission.

Definately Guilty as charged.

Px

[Steve]

Its a bit of a worry actually that the motivations of the couple were taken into account - this is something Ive been arguing against pretty strongly in any situation where new laws are being discussed.

if you arent perceived as being greedy you get a lesser fine and penalty and you're right regardless of why you do it - you do it and the dogs suffer . they have 250 odd dogs keep them poorly but get a reprieve because they were usining what they did to feed themselves rather than live a life of luxury????

Ive seen some of the most dreadful cruelty and neglect in situations where the breeder will be adamant they are only breeding for the show ring, or only breeding for the "betterment of the breed"

Since doing Pacers we have seen some doozies who breed because they just love puppies, to buy some new bedroom furniture etc

Now while I think it s appropriate to take into account other things when setting penalties Im not happy that people can plead against a penalty or feel they will be exempt or treated differently for being neglectful and treating their animals poorly if they dont appear to be breeding for greed.

Dogs should be protected no matter what the motivation is - no matter how many they own and while ever we judge people on their motivation rather than their actions I cant see us moving ahead.Its why calls for laws which only target large scale breeders who are perceived to breed commercially wont cut it. especially if they breed commercially but dont manage to rake up large cash flows. makes no sense to me.

disclaimer - this is not me supporting commercial breeders it is me saying that dogs are treated poorly by people regardless of their motivation and sometimes those who are motivated by money - greed do a better job in looking after their animals than those who have a few do. Consequences and penalties should be judged on the action not the motivation. if someone wants to take my post and put it on a face book page to discredit me and have people calling for me to bleed and burn and die please don't change it as was done last time or take parts of it out of context.

[Tralee]

Its a bit of a worry actually that the motivations of the couple were taken into account - this is something Ive been arguing against pretty strongly in any situation where new laws are being discussed.

Unfortunately, or fortunately that is the way the legal systems work.

I have also seen leniancy shown because an obviously guilty culprit, who was caught red-handed, has three children under five and a pregnant wife with no-one to support them.

Dogs should be protected no matter what the motivation is - no matter how many they own and while ever we judge people on their motivation rather than their actions I cant see us moving ahead.

But I think the law does examine people on their intent

Its why calls for laws which only target large scale breeders who are perceived to breed commercially wont cut it.

disclaimer ... sometimes those who are motivated by money - greed do a better job in looking after their animals than those who have a few do. Consequences and penalties should be judged on the action not the motivation.

Well this puts the question in a whole different perspective.

What's to stop all the registered Maremma Breeders forming a co-op to breed cooperatively, sourcing pedigrees and meeting demand.

If the dogs are handled on a large scale, and treated with state of the art facilities, then who is to say their efforts are should not be rewarded economically. The financial benefit is still only secondary, or a side-effect, to maintaining standards of best practice.

Large scale commercial breeders cannot be judged by a different yardstick.

if someone wants to take my post and put it on a face book page to discredit me and have people calling for me to bleed and burn and die please don't change it as was done last time or take parts of it out of context.

Well that is just outragious.

Can't you complain to facebook, or put a comment following the post to expose the person.

I don't fb so I only know about YouTube.

Steve

In the final days, when legislation is handed down, and a consensus reached, breeding will be accounted for.

The issue, I strongly agree, must include much greater and erudite nuancing of the acts that will be passed.

Regards

Px

Edited March 2, 2012 by Tralee

[Alyosha]

I was a bit stunned that they failed to record a conviction in a matter of this size. The need vs greed thing is a little absurd really. Surely the numbers - 246- indicate a level of greed on their own? Just because they don't seem very successful at making a motza out of this many dogs doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Why else have that many individuals and be commercially breeding them if not for the almighty dollar?

[liverchips]

Its a bit of a worry actually that the motivations of the couple were taken into account - this is something Ive been arguing against pretty strongly in any situation where new laws are being discussed.

if you arent perceived as being greedy you get a lesser fine and penalty and you're right regardless of why you do it - you do it and the dogs suffer . they have 250 odd dogs keep them poorly but get a reprieve because they were usining what they did to feed themselves rather than live a life of luxury????

Ive seen some of the most dreadful cruelty and neglect in situations where the breeder will be adamant they are only breeding for the show ring, or only breeding for the "betterment of the breed"

Since doing Pacers we have seen some doozies who breed because they just love puppies, to buy some new bedroom furniture etc

Now while I think it s appropriate to take into account other things when setting penalties Im not happy that people can plead against a penalty or feel they will be exempt or treated differently for being neglectful and treating their animals poorly if they dont appear to be breeding for greed.

Dogs should be protected no matter what the motivation is - no matter how many they own and while ever we judge people on their motivation rather than their actions I cant see us moving ahead.Its why calls for laws which only target large scale breeders who are perceived to breed commercially wont cut it. especially if they breed commercially but dont manage to rake up large cash flows. makes no sense to me.

disclaimer - this is not me supporting commercial breeders it is me saying that dogs are treated poorly by people regardless of their motivation and sometimes those who are motivated by money - greed do a better job in looking after their animals than those who have a few do. Consequences and penalties should be judged on the action not the motivation. if someone wants to take my post and put it on a face book page to discredit me and have people calling for me to bleed and burn and die please don't change it as was done last time or take parts of it out of context.

I agree. I think breeders (all breeders) should be encouraged to care for their dogs correctly. Regardless of their motivation, be that financial or otherwise. In respect to commercial breeders, if there is financial gain in breeding healthy dogs which have been health tested and housed in good facilities then it's ultimately a good thing for those dogs even if we don't agree with what the commercial breeders are doing. If all breeders were encouraged to be registered then we could regulate and monitor them to make sure they are accountable. By pushing them underground we can't monitor them and will therefore also attract criminals rather than people who are prepared to breed dogs correctly and be held accountable. All breeders and dog owners should be treated the same and therefore be punished the same regardless of the motivations.

[bluedeer]

I agree with both of you in that ALL breeders, regardless of what their stated motivation is, have the same duty of care to their dogs. This is why we need to have a set minimum standards for all dogs kept whether they are bred from or not. Having one set of rules for commercial breeders and another for hobby breeders allows dodgy breeders to slip though the net by claiming to be in the group with the most relaxed rules. Even we should adopt some of the rules that apply to commercial breeders such as physical inspection of our dogs and facilities. I have no problem with the ranger taking a look at the way my dogs are kept as it may cause the ranger to expect more from others. I think different rules for different groups leads to the mindset of judges like this one where they may think that the motivation for breeding has a bearing on whether neglect is cruel or not. I'd prefer to see ALL breeders better educated in the care of their dogs. Judging breeders on their level of care of their dogs based on their "stated" intent (whether it be commercial, show, betterment of the breed, etc) is ridiculous as stated intent has little to do with the level of care provided for the dogs. Having a go at any breeder who admits to making any profit through breeding is just as invalid as defending any show breeder who does a substandard job of looking after their dogs. Neglect is neglect in my book.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

it was a case of neglect rather than deliberate cruelty, and the breeding and sale of the puppies was engaged in more out of need than greed

It IS cruel to neglect animals who depend on us for anything. As usual, the punishments handed out to this couple seem woefully inadequate to my eye. Their finances were examined and it was determined NOT to fine them any more? Let them go into debt to pay off the charges. Then perhaps they will learn form it. What is going to happen in three years time? They'll be straight back into it and this whole process will be repeated, more dogs left suffering. But at least they were caught, for now.

[OzzieLioness]

Good Lord, 246 dogs!! No wonder they had to set up a temporary triage and care area - who would be equipped to suddenly take THAT many dogs!!

I don't understand why people who are supposedly making money off their dogs don't treat their "bread winners" in a humane and better way - if they did, surely it stands to reason that they would make more money, not less, if this were their only motivation? A sick dog ain't gonna breed - and if they do, their puppies tend to die.

Now, having said that, I have to state categorically that I HATE PUPPY FARMS - and I would never ever knowingly buy a dog from one or support them in any way, shape or form.

To the best of my knowledge, most breeders will only breed to improve their breeds, and they don't make money. If they are lucky, they recover costs.

I am glad to see that cruelty to any animal is making it to the penalty stage in court! I once begged RSPCA peeps to come for some starving horses that I saw - but they were not down on the ground, so they were unable to do a thing.

[Jed]

What an appalling result. The law IS an ass.

A bad blow in the fight against puppy farms. So sad when biosecurity and rspca did so much work on this. At least some dogs were given better lives.

Steve

Ive seen some of the most dreadful cruelty and neglect in situations where the breeder will be adamant they are only breeding for the show ring, or only breeding for the "betterment of the breed"

And I hope you have reported those people to the state CC on each and every occasion?

OzzieLioness

I don't understand why people who are supposedly making money off their dogs don't treat their "bread winners" in a humane and better way - if they did, surely it stands to reason that they would make more money, not less, if this were their only motivation? A sick dog ain't gonna breed - and if they do, their puppies tend to die.

Because my dear, they make much more money if they simply breed them every season, ignore any health problems, and when the bitches wont breed any more, simply shoot them, like the rubbish they have always treated them as.

And if they don't test for hereditary problems, they save even more. Too bad if the pups go blind from pra. Whem they have hundeds of pups to sell, a few popping off is not a problem. And as they have cost them sfa, they probably don't care much.

Cheaper to let them die than to take them to the vet - they will probably die anyhow. And if the pet shop refuses to take them any more because they were sick, too bad, there are other pet shops, sales on the side of the road, etc.

And if they keep the breeding dogs chained to trees in the paddock with a bit of corrugated iron for shelter, you save heaps on buildings, maintenance, power blah blah.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Jed

[OzzieLioness]

Because my dear, they make much more money if they simply breed them every season, ignore any health problems, and when the bitches wont breed any more, simply shoot them, like the rubbish they have always treated them as.

And if they don't test for hereditary problems, they save even more. Too bad if the pups go blind from pra. Whem they have hundeds of pups to sell, a few popping off is not a problem. And as they have cost them sfa, they probably don't care much.

Cheaper to let them die than to take them to the vet - they will probably die anyhow. And if the pet shop refuses to take them any more because they were sick, too bad, there are other pet shops, sales on the side of the road, etc.

And if they keep the breeding dogs chained to trees in the paddock with a bit of corrugated iron for shelter, you save heaps on buildings, maintenance, power blah blah.

That just makes me so sad, that people are capable of that sort of monstrous behaviour. I guess thinking they should treat them better to "protect their investment" is just naivety on my part.

Whilst probably not enough, between the two people fined, they'll be forking out $35,000. I don't know their financials, but at their ages, that's a good fine - imho.

The "compensation" .... does anyone know where that goes? To the RSPCA? I hope so, anyhow!

[Jed]

I was not, of course, referring specifically to that puppy farm, but to all puppy farms. $35,000 is very little for someone who has more than 350 breeding bitches, probably having 12 pups (at least) a year @ $300 average each. Just a drop in the bucket.

Meanwhile, proper breeders would be horrified to be fined $100, because that was probably what they made out of dogs in the past 5 years So they'd have to scratch aroundto find it. Not that I am planning on being fined any time soon :laugh:

As far as that puppy farm is concerned, I would have banned them from having any animals at all in the future. 3 years is not enough.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I was not, of course, referring specifically to that puppy farm, but to all puppy farms. $35,000 is very little for someone who has more than 350 breeding bitches, probably having 12 pups (at least) a year @ $300 average each. Just a drop in the bucket.

Meanwhile, proper breeders would be horrified to be fined $100, because that was probably what they made out of dogs in the past 5 years So they'd have to scratch aroundto find it. Not that I am planning on being fined any time soon :laugh:

As far as that puppy farm is concerned, I would have banned them from having any animals at all in the future. 3 years is not enough.

Jeezes Jed where did you come up with that figure. Try 10 years. :rofl: :rofl:

[Rysup]

Geez Jed, in my case it would be 20 years!

[Bilbo Baggins]

Geez Jed, in my case it would be 20 years!

Probably closer to the mark Rysup.

[Tralee]

Geez Jed, in my case it would be 20 years!

Geez Jed, in my case it would be 20 years!

Probably closer to the mark Rysup.

Well you're both doing better than I am.

I figure I'm about $5000 down every year. ;)

So conservatively over seven years, ... erh anybody want to take my dogs. :D

[Jed]

I dunno what is wrong with youse. It IS possible to make nearly $100 in 5 years in dog breedng. Mostly. Sometimes. Youse might need to lift yez acts a bit?

So if any of us are charged we can get off because we are not very good or profitable breeders?

However, 350 bitches X $300 X 6 pups each (be conservative).

Tralee, you will know what that comes to, it makes my eyeballs ache!! :laugh:

[mita]

I was a bit stunned that they failed to record a conviction in a matter of this size. The need vs greed thing is a little absurd really. Surely the numbers - 246- indicate a level of greed on their own? Just because they don't seem very successful at making a motza out of this many dogs doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Why else have that many individuals and be commercially breeding them if not for the almighty dollar?

I couldn't agree more. Since when has 'need' v 'greed' made any difference to the actual 'crime'....in that animals suffered in a way that the law makes people accountable for?

There's a strong voluntary legal group, BLEATS, in Qld that concerns itself with animal welfare cases and how they fare before the courts.

I hope they'll pick up on this 'odd' finding which doesn't auger well as any precedent for future cases.

Edited March 4, 2012 by mita

[Tralee]

I dunno what is wrong with youse. It IS possible to make nearly $100 in 5 years in dog breedng. Mostly. Sometimes. Youse might need to lift yez acts a bit?

So if any of us are charged we can get off because we are not very good or profitable breeders?

However, 350 bitches X $300 X 6 pups each (be conservative).

Tralee, you will know what that comes to, it makes my eyeballs ache!! :laugh:

Yo'z gonna take a li'l ride, see. ;)

When the number of dogs reaches three figures, we start to see princely sums.

I don't know how many times I have to present the books :laugh:

[4 dogs x feed (kibble, canned, fresh and bones weekly)] + (proportion of the rent and yard maintenance) + (proportion of the electric and water) + [(4 x 12 x flea and tick treatments + (4 x 4 worm treatments)] + (4 x yearly health check and vaccinations) + (cleaning equipment and chemicals) + (dog supplies - bowls, collars, leashes, braces, brushes, combs, shampoo) + (supply and maintain fences) + (unforseen veterinary treatments) + (puppy school, obedience, agility, dog shows) + (time, labour and transport) = minus infinity.

And that's before any of them get a whiff of a mating.

Add the income from puppies.

Well, I need to calculate the cost of preparing the bitch, finding a sire, ..... Oh for the love of pete!

Princely sums might be generated by commercial breeders but they should also have a princely expenditure

This is the point. In the main, puppies are not bred for profit.

Do we breed children to turn a quick dollar?

The morality or ethics of large breeding concerns is another matter.

Regards

Px

Edited March 4, 2012 by Tralee

[Puppoochi]

I'd like to know why the MDBA in their Codes of Conduct, have no restrictions on how often a bitch can be bred or how many times she can be bred. As far as I'm concerned a puppy farmer can have as few as a handful of dogs and breed them back to back until they drop dead. This is also an act of cruelty. I think the MDBA should review their codes of conduct.