Chris the Rebel Wolf Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Don't know about NZ but Aus yes they can own animals even if they have been banned by a court of law, it just goes in someone else's name. Welcome to the real world, not the world of a paper trail. I cant believe Dolers with all the masses of info at hand can portray to be so worldly and just yet be so naive at the same time. . I recall a case a few years back where after being charged for animal cruelty and given a [piddling] two year animal ban on owning dogs, the puppy farmer in question was caught with a dozen more dogs in a family member's name. They were charged a second time Of course people will try to find ways around these things but what would you rather - no ban on animals given to these puppy farmers? I for one think it's a fantastic result and applaud the 20 year ban on owning further dogs or cats. If they are caught with further pets under another name, they will eventually be caught, and fined and punished yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 It isn't, but unless you were there you're going on gossip which means it is unlikely to be true, and if you were, you had something to do with the case which means even the little 'I know something you don't' hints you're dropping shows an irresponsible lack of professionalism. Get a grip Sheridan. Nothing that I have said here is anything that anyone can't find from media reports using the ever-useful google. Sorry if you thought you were missing out on something. I do have some first hand knowledge of previous events (going back to the mid-late '80's) which have nothing to do with this court case but which clearly show how this situation came to be. Not sure how my comments case shows an irresponsible lack of professionalism though - by profession I'm a bookkeeper :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Oh previous case. Nothing to do with this one at all. Your ignorance of these events is noted. I must say a lot of us Kiwis are really proud of the result that was reached in this case. We just wish that we got results like this a lot more often Results like this never happen here. Does NZ have a lot of hoarding cases? Edited June 30, 2012 by Sheridan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolz Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 i wouldnt say we have a lot because we dont really hear about them that much unless they are BIG like this one has been and then its not very often that we end up with good outcomes like this. normally they end up with a slap in the wrist with a wet bus ticket.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Don't know about NZ but Aus yes they can own animals even if they have been banned by a court of law, it just goes in someone else's name. Welcome to the real world, not the world of a paper trail. I cant believe Dolers with all the masses of info at hand can portray to be so worldly and just yet be so naive at the same time. . What do you mean?? The report says they are banned from owning any dogs, cats puppies or kittens except the ones they already own???? 103 cats and 87 dogs is going to go a long way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lavendergirl Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Don't know about NZ but Aus yes they can own animals even if they have been banned by a court of law, it just goes in someone else's name. Welcome to the real world, not the world of a paper trail. I cant believe Dolers with all the masses of info at hand can portray to be so worldly and just yet be so naive at the same time. . What do you mean?? The report says they are banned from owning any dogs, cats puppies or kittens except the ones they already own???? 103 cats and 87 dogs is going to go a long way! Now I am even more confused Sorry how does your comment relate to Gecko's assertion that Dolers portray themselves as worldly but yet are naive. I don't think anyone was disputing that people can put their puppy farm - or whatever - business into another name. I am obviously missing something :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Don't know about NZ but Aus yes they can own animals even if they have been banned by a court of law, it just goes in someone else's name. Welcome to the real world, not the world of a paper trail. I cant believe Dolers with all the masses of info at hand can portray to be so worldly and just yet be so naive at the same time. . What do you mean?? The report says they are banned from owning any dogs, cats puppies or kittens except the ones they already own???? 103 cats and 87 dogs is going to go a long way! Now I am even more confused Sorry how does your comment relate to Gecko's assertion that Dolers portray themselves as worldly but yet are naive. I don't think anyone was disputing that people can put their puppy farm - or whatever - business into another name. I am obviously missing something :D Sorry, should have quoted further back. Gecko was saying that they can still own animals if they are in another name. The paper report states they can also keep the animals they already own. I find this surprising given the severity of their case. Edited July 6, 2012 by LizT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the Rebel Wolf Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Did anybody else read somewhere in the linked articles that they were only allowed to keep 3 or 4 of the dogs involved? I swear when I read them the other day I saw that and recall thinking 'Well I wish they'd taken the whole lot off them, but 3 is better than 250 and at least they'll be in the public eye and hopefully getting better care now' - but now when I re-read I can't find any mention of how many animals they were allowed to keep? Only that half were put down but surely they haven't been given the okay to keep over a hundred dogs and cats after this sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) The dogs were never impounded by the SPCA. Of the 87 (86?) dogs on the property, 65 were rescued by a breeder. They were not aggressive or in poor condition as the media has reported. All of then were fostered out and then rehomed by the breeder. She spent three days taking dogs from the property and was not allowed one more day to take the others by the SPCA inspector. There was no reason not to allow the rest of dogs out but the SPCA would not allow the breeder to take them and the rest were pts. People shouldn't believe everything they read. The only animals they have are few, if any. Edited July 7, 2012 by Sheridan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Update: Balfours to appeal convictions: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7460448/Balfours-to-appeal-conviction Edited August 11, 2012 by Sheridan 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