BarbedWire Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-20/fresh-charges-laid-against-family-accused-animal-neglect/6406624?section=act Canberra family accused of 240 dog neglect offences face fresh charges By Matthew Doran Updated yesterday at 8:47pm Stefan Trpcevski PHOTO: Canberra man Stefan Trpcevski is facing more than 130 animal neglect charges. (Facebook) MAP: Canberra 2600 A Canberra family accused of hundreds of cases of animal neglect have had 20 fresh charges laid against them. Stefan Trpcevski, his mother Lidija Ski and brother Aleksander Ski are now facing more than 240 charges in total. More than 130 of those are against Stefan Trpcevski. The charges from late 2013 relate to dogs kept at properties in Liverpool Street in Macquarie and Lalor Street in Ainslie. They range from failing to provide food, water and exercise to the dogs, failing to register and de-sex the animals, and failing to seek veterinary treatment. There are also a number of charges relating to failure to comply with nuisance orders. Today, Prosecutor Katrina Mackenzie told the ACT Magistrates Court they have laid a further 20 charges against the family. But the trio are yet to be formally charged with the fresh offences, some of which amend previous charges. Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker has adjourned the matter until next month. At last someone is taking the ACT de-sexing laws seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Oh, so glad to read this! He was well known at RSPCA ACT and we had a whole bunch of his dogs seized while I was there. They were actually sweet dogs but several had to be PTS for health issues and the way they were allegedly kept was horrible From what I heard none of their many dogs were desexed and would breed indiscriminately so they had a never ending supply of dogs even when some would be seized and not returned. All alleged of course, I never saw the property myself. Edited April 21, 2015 by Simply Grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryGirl Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I bet the Courts are lenient... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? Perhaps they cant charge them with indiscriminate dog breeding and it's the only way they can charge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Oh, so glad to read this! He was well known at RSPCA ACT and we had a whole bunch of his dogs seized while I was there. They were actually sweet dogs but several had to be PTS for health issues and the way they were allegedly kept was horrible From what I heard none of their many dogs were desexed and would breed indiscriminately so they had a never ending supply of dogs even when some would be seized and not returned. All alleged of course, I never saw the property myself. I know that name from years ago. Why did they let it go on so long? more Without saying more it would be helpful for this to be posted on some of the fb rescue pages. Edited April 22, 2015 by Powerlegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? In the ACT dogs over six months have to be desexed unless the owner has a permit to breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Oh, so glad to read this! He was well known at RSPCA ACT and we had a whole bunch of his dogs seized while I was there. They were actually sweet dogs but several had to be PTS for health issues and the way they were allegedly kept was horrible From what I heard none of their many dogs were desexed and would breed indiscriminately so they had a never ending supply of dogs even when some would be seized and not returned. All alleged of course, I never saw the property myself. I know that name from years ago. Why did they let it go on so long? more Without saying more it would be helpful for this to be posted on some of the fb rescue pages. That link is disturbing Powerlegs. I hope they follow up on it this time. Why can't authorities just enforce laws and why isn't the RSPCA involved in this? I am so angry. Such cruelty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? In the ACT dogs over six months have to be desexed unless the owner has a permit to breed. Yes but I disagree that not desexing a dog is neglecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? In the ACT dogs over six months have to be desexed unless the owner has a permit to breed. Yes but I disagree that not desexing a dog is neglecting it. I think the law was brought in to stop backyard breeders and to do something about unwanted dogs arriving at the pound and leaving in green bags. I guess it is neglect if the dog has unplanned litters. I just wish they would enforce the laws already in place. If it is illegal something should be happening. Otherwise there is no point to the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trifecta Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? Not desexing does not constitute neglect, it contravenes the laws of the Territory Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't really agree that not desexing is neglect in itself. I wonder if they consider it so? In the ACT dogs over six months have to be desexed unless the owner has a permit to breed. Yes but I disagree that not desexing a dog is neglecting it. I think the law was brought in to stop backyard breeders and to do something about unwanted dogs arriving at the pound and leaving in green bags. I guess it is neglect if the dog has unplanned litters. I just wish they would enforce the laws already in place. If it is illegal something should be happening. Otherwise there is no point to the law. Imagine living next door to either of these properties, particularly if you could see over the fence. It's all a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit really. There were noise complaints made and automatically that should trigger attention to the number of dogs being kept there (against the law) and the condition the dogs were being kept in (also against the law). Then of course is the issue of keeping so many fertile animals together (another breach of the laws in ACT). What the hell RSPCA and local council? These dogs were starving. That doesn't happen in a week. They had open wounds with no evidence of vet treatment. They were living in their own faeces. How many things need to be wrong and how many laws need to be broken before something is done to protect the animals at risk??? I hope all three abusers are crippled by fines and public opinion and are never able to even pat a dog again, let alone ever own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuralPug Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Allowing dogs in your care to breed indiscrinminately is surely neglect as much as not ensuring veterinary care and proper housing and nutrition. I imagine that in this case "not desexing" is a shortcut way of saying they are breeding indiscriminately but I do agree that using that shortcut term may set a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryGirl Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 There's no council in the ACT - it's one level of government only. The law stipulates that all dogs over six months MUST BE de-sexed unless the owner obtains a breeder's permit (there are stringent requirements for both obtaining and keeping a breeder's permit for good reason). Nobody is suggesting "failing to de-sex equates to neglect" per se. The issue with the animals being entire is two-fold: they are aged over six months, and they are kept within the ACT without a breeder's permit. Therefore that is a clear breach of legislation. The manner in which the animals are housed and the lack of vet care and nutrition is a separate issue. I am stunned that some people seem to be condoning the fact that these animals are not de-sexed...the law applies to all dog owners in the ACT equally. Mandatory de-sexing has been in force in the ACT since 2000. There is no excuse to be in contravention of the law is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) I don't know exactly what happened but from what I heard when I was there RSPCA ACT and DAS seized multiple dogs from them on a number of occasions. They would sign over those dogs and just get more, presumably through either breeding their own or getting them elsewhere, or both. I recall hearing that they would move dogs around between the family homes and wherever else so they couldn't be kept track of, refuse to admit who actually owned the dogs or was responsible for their care and deny that they kept the dogs chained up for any length of time. So it was difficult for RSPCA at least to actually prosecute anyone. Edited April 22, 2015 by Simply Grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) I wasn't condoning indiscriminate breeding, didn't see anybody do that so not sure why you're "stunned". Just questioning whether they actually believe that simply not desexing = neglect. Edited April 22, 2015 by Dame Aussie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) There's no council in the ACT - it's one level of government only. The law stipulates that all dogs over six months MUST BE de-sexed unless the owner obtains a breeder's permit (there are stringent requirements for both obtaining and keeping a breeder's permit for good reason). Nobody is suggesting "failing to de-sex equates to neglect" per se. The issue with the animals being entire is two-fold: they are aged over six months, and they are kept within the ACT without a breeder's permit. Therefore that is a clear breach of legislation. The manner in which the animals are housed and the lack of vet care and nutrition is a separate issue. I am stunned that some people seem to be condoning the fact that these animals are not de-sexed...the law applies to all dog owners in the ACT equally. Mandatory de-sexing has been in force in the ACT since 2000. There is no excuse to be in contravention of the law is there? Not so. You do not require a breeder's permit to keep an dog aged over six months undesexed. What you require is a permit to keep a sexually entire dog. They are not one and the same. The registrar must issue a permit for a breeding dog, a show dog, a racing greyhound or if it would be detrimental to the health of the dog to desex it but they may issue one for other reasons. You also require a keeper's license to keep more than three dogs, entire or not. Breeder licensing is in the next legislation changes to be introduced. Edited April 22, 2015 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't know exactly what happened but from what I heard when I was there RSPCA ACT and DAS seized multiple dogs from them on a number of occasions. They would sign over those dogs and just get more, presumably through either breeding their own or getting them elsewhere, or both. I recall hearing that they would move dogs around between the family homes and wherever else so they couldn't be kept track of, refuse to admit who actually owned the dogs or was responsible for their care and deny that they kept the dogs chained up for any length of time. So it was difficult for RSPCA at least to actually prosecute anyone. I think I get frustrated because it was probably clear to officers attending these properties that these people should not be owning any pets. Who needs to have alias names and refuse to say who owns an animal if they are doing nothing wrong? And if you have animals seized from a property or people associated with a property then wouldn't they be on your red flag list if future complaints came in? Having worked in statutory child protection I know the difference between removing a victim from harm and being able to make a case that results in a conviction. One does not necessarily equate to the other (for a variety of reasons) and sometimes just making sure the innocent victim is the best outcome. This is one of those times when I wish dogs didn't have to suffer while humans got their act together. As for the desexing issue, I think there is a case for neglect if dogs who are related to each other are left to breed, if dogs of different sizes are left to breed (risk to a small bitch if she is carrying large pups), if an aggressive male is left to mate unattended with a bitch in season, if multiple males are left to mate unattended with a bitch in season, if no vet assistance has been obtained for a bitch or pups if needed and if the bitch does not have a suitable environment or nourishment to successfully whelp and raise puppies. I guess they would have to be able to prove this but these would be some basic issues that place a bitch and pups unnessecarily at risk of death or injury, especially if you have a lot of dogs in a small yard like they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) LG, I suspect at least Stefan was doing other questionable things also which might be why the alias. Definitely agree it's frustrating, and in ACT at least the Inspectorate works fairly independently (or did) so the inspectors' views towards what type of intervention should be undertaken can determine what happens when others may not agree with it (although I don't know the full story with this case). Also agree with everything you say about not desexing. I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of their puppies didn't survive given the conditions and they just disposed of them with no one knowing about them That's just speculation though. Edited April 23, 2015 by Simply Grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I don't know exactly what happened but from what I heard when I was there RSPCA ACT and DAS seized multiple dogs from them on a number of occasions. They would sign over those dogs and just get more, presumably through either breeding their own or getting them elsewhere, or both. I recall hearing that they would move dogs around between the family homes and wherever else so they couldn't be kept track of, refuse to admit who actually owned the dogs or was responsible for their care and deny that they kept the dogs chained up for any length of time. So it was difficult for RSPCA at least to actually prosecute anyone. Pounds and rescues. There was also a couple of chinese whispers floating around, as they do. Much of what is described is hoarding behaviour. Unstoppable and oblivious to the needs or suffering of the dogs they collect. Punitive punishment may feel like justice but it it can never stop a desperate person with family to enable them. Charges will just keep getting added as fast as they are dealt with. Compare it with a greyhound case from years back, or the recent horse hoarder case right down to the rotating of animals through different properties. A lot of extraordinary effort goes in to keeping the animals. I'd even say he did not set out to be neglectful or cruel and probably still believes he loves and protects his dogs, even rescued or saved some. animal hoard explanatory model (Tufts) 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