robke Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132168/Couple-kept-56-malnourished-dogs-garden-banned-owning-animals-years.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenwolf Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Hoarding issues are always tragic. These people think they are doing a good thing and it just gets out of control and they fail to see that their kindness has turned into cruelty. I approve of the 8-year ban - I've not heard of many that long! - but for hoarding cases, when they are permitted to own animals again they should have a strict limit on how many they can own and they should be subject to random inspections to ensure they adhere to that. Owning any more than the limit should result in immediate seizure and a lifetime ban. That's my 2 cents anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Jones Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I'm sure they only wanted the best for the animals and it all got a little much for them. wonder how many of the dogs got put to sleep by the RSPCA?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robke Posted April 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I am sure that that is what they wanted to do...but with that small amount of space and 5 kids.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 should have been banned for life!!!! :mad: poor dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Jones Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Not the best of ideas they could of had thats for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robke Posted April 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 That is true, but the the people around them could have done something about it as well..just imagine the dog food needed even if they were not taken care of as needed they stell had food if the average rating was 1,5 out of 3... and lets not talk about the stench....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loops Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 and lets not talk about the stench....... tell me about it! since my one turned to three the difference is unbelievable, its not the crap its the pee, i hope to god my area does not get a hose pipe ban or you'll see me in court for keeping dogs in filthy conditions too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elyse Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I understand the situation, and trying not to be biased...it didn't seem like they intentionally hoarded the animals OR wanted to cause any harm to them. I see it this way: They got one dog after another, maybe most of them being rescues or other 'unwanted pets'. They didn't want to give them to the shelter because they feared the animals would be put down. So they kept them. As their pack kept on growing, they probably felt overwhelmed but they were too embarrassed to say anything to the SPCA for fear of criminal offenses and they probably feared that all of those animals would be put down because homes wouldn't be found for most of them. They couldn't afford to feed them all properly, but as far as we know...they didn't let any starve to death. So, I understand their situation. Sort of. But, at the same time, I believe it was irresponsible of them to not get help after they realized they were starting to get into trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huskies On The Go Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132168/Couple-kept-56-malnourished-dogs-garden-banned-owning-animals-years.html Your right about that, should have be more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLuka Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 some of the comments on this are crazy. people think the dogs actually look healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huskies On The Go Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 some of the comments on this are crazy. people think the dogs actually look healthy. Your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenwolf Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I understand the situation, and trying not to be biased...it didn't seem like they intentionally hoarded the animals OR wanted to cause any harm to them. I see it this way: They got one dog after another, maybe most of them being rescues or other 'unwanted pets'. They didn't want to give them to the shelter because they feared the animals would be put down. So they kept them. As their pack kept on growing, they probably felt overwhelmed but they were too embarrassed to say anything to the SPCA for fear of criminal offenses and they probably feared that all of those animals would be put down because homes wouldn't be found for most of them. They couldn't afford to feed them all properly, but as far as we know...they didn't let any starve to death. So, I understand their situation. Sort of. But, at the same time, I believe it was irresponsible of them to not get help after they realized they were starting to get into trouble. LOL, that pretty well IS how hoarding happens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Jones Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 some of the comments on this are crazy. people think the dogs actually look healthy. Who said they look Healthy?? granted they dont but i've seen far worse on TV shows both here and in the States. With small minds i guess they thought they where helping the animals. And it got way out of hand but it goes to show the problem, i'm guessing the rescue places couldnt take them. They sure didn't buy all those dogs, so they gave them a place off the streets and stopped them from being put down due to over crowding. Fair enough they did wrong and have been banned from keeping animals as they can't (Shouldn't) as they didnt do the right thing and try and get help - But i honestly dont think they wanted harm to come to the animals. Always 2 sides to every coin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue bayou Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Looking at the pics the place looked clean considering all the dogs. i dont know how they come to have that many and something wasnt done sooner! yes i think they may have had good intentions who knows but anyone in the right mind can see there was no room for all them dogs and i guess it would be noisey! where are the neighbours they obviously look out of there windows and see all them dogs! i would never have to many dogs that i couldnt look after and you can bet your life they never walked them!!! its mad i cant believe it really! wonder where all the dogs are now:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff&&Kava Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 So sad.:mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siberian Shadow Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 I too recently added to my pack,and now have 3 huskies. Before making the decision to re home the 3rd,I went through the basics....could I afford to feed,insure,give vet care & boosters & routine worming/flea prevention? Then on to the walking regime..... That's how we all do it logically and we care. The hoarding is a whole different ball game,it's a form of mental illness isn't it?Because you are in fact doing more harm than good and it becomes a compulsion without thought for basic care??? I have never heard of a hoarding situation where there wasn't harm inflicted on the animals....being deprived of care and locked away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephona Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 The place did look fairly clean considering how many dogs were on the premises and the dogs don't look that bad either - maybe they're on the thin side, but they don't look seriously malnourished to me. I think they still tried to take care of the dogs to their best abilities and they had good intentions, although it was extremely irresponsible, especially with children in the house. I am glad though the dogs were seized before it got much worse - as much as those people wanted to help, I think it's better to just take on a few dogs that would have otherwise been put down and offer them their full attention and care, rather than taking on 50 of them and only being able to give them shelter and food. And the end result of this is that at least some of the dogs will end up being put down - probably not due to being sick, but because of behavioural issues. And who knows whether they'll ever get adopted. I find it slightly unfair that they were banned to own any pets for 8 years. As stupid as their actions might have been, I still think they should have been allowed to keep 1 or 2 of the dogs and have regular checks afterwards to see if they are well cared for and if they haven't gotten more dogs in the mean time. That's just me though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tams Teeko and Keeta Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 I think the ban is appropriate as clearly these people have some sort of issues if they didn't stop and think enough is enough. But, I really think the media are crucifying them unjustly! The pic of the pups in a crate has the caption '2 puppies trapped in a cage!' well, their situation is no different to that of my little one whenever I leave the house. (Well done Daily Mail....yet another family is going to end up rehoming their destructive pup because it's so cruel to use a cage!) And these people are being attacked and bullied for what could have been dealt with quietly and just as effectively. The dogs do look underweight but the picture states 'visibly distressed dogs' I didn't see that, I saw s bunch of nosy huskies with their ears pricked sticking their noses into a camera! But,.....you can not judge from a picture alone. Yes, they were wrong. Yes, they should be banned for their own sake, their children and future animals. But really the media need to get a grip and stop victimising individuals so harshly. Start attacking the gangs of people running dog fighting rings! The people who breed bitches too young year after year. Surely there should be some distinction between intent to harm and good will gone wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mydiamond Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 no news about the dogs?? Where are they now? How many have been adopted how many are in foster homes how many are still behind the bars? No news? that is what I'm actually more concerned about about the couple... I think the court and SPCA is not being too nice to this couple =\ I've read about 2 or 3 years of banning, but 8 wow that's new. They must be serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue bayou Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 yes i would also like to know whats happened to all the dogs:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollynDiesel Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 The dogs didnt look too badly cared for considering the numbers they had! If they are with rspca now then there is a possibility some will be put to sleep. Ofcourse it is cruelty to have that many in a house that size and cats, birds, kids etc. But you do have to feel sorry for the dogs that had a home, wont find a new home and will probably be pts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.