RSPCA::

 

FACT SHEET

 

 

General

OFFICER IN CHARGE:            Inspector Courtney MILTON

STATION ATTACHED:             RSPCA Yagoona

CHARGE / C.A.N:                              Court Attendance Notice Only

COURT ATTENDANCE:           Katoomba Local Court

ANTECEDENTS:                      The Accused is not known to the RSPCA.

 

Buzz (#3)                  1. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Appaloosa Gelding `Buzz' - Horse #3)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 2 November 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

2. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Appaloosa Gelding `Buzz' - Horse #3)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Brandy (#4)              3. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT – LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Buckskin Mare'Brandy' - Horse #4)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979.

Between 24 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Lucky (#7)               4. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Flea bitten Grey Mare `Lucky' - Horse #7)

Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

 

Gary's Mare             5. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

(#11)                               Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Bay Mare `Gary's Mare' - Horse #11)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 24 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Ginger (#12)            6. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Chestnut Gelding `Ginger' - Horse #12)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 24 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Sugar (#13)              7. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(White Mare `Sugar' - Horse #13)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 24 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

8. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(White Mare `Sugar' - Horse #13)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Alice (#14)               9. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Bay Mare `Alice' - Horse #14)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 24 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Polish (#18)              10. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Bay Mare `Polish' - Horse #18)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Moose (#19)            11. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Bay Clydesdale Gelding `Moose' - Horse #19)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

Kiwi (#20)                 12. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - WORMS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal.

(Appaloosa Mare `Kiwi' - Horse #20)

Section 5(3) (c) - Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act 200 of 1979. Between 18 September 2007 and 26 September 2007

(Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

 

Jellybean (#21)               13. FAIL TO PROVIDE VET TREATMENT - LAMENESS

Did fail to provide veterinary treatment to an animal. (Black/Grey Pony Gelding `Jellybean' - Horse #13)

Between 23 September 2007 and 26 September 2007 (3 days) (Maximum Penalty: $5,500 and/or 6 months imprisonment - Individual)

 

FULL FACTS

1. On 4 September 2007, RSPCA Inspector MILTON attended the Megalong Australian Heritage Centre at Lot 1 Megalong Road, Megalong Valley for the purpose of investigating a complaint about a number of horses.

2. On arrival to the property, the officer met with the accused, Glenda Maria LANE. The accused was informed of the complaint and led to the accused showing the officer several horses on the main property and driving the officer to another property, know as 'Shenandoah', where several more horses were sighted. The accused indicated that there were approximately 130 horses in total on both properties. During the inspection, a number of issues were sighted and resulted in `Operation Megalong' being organized to be carried out on the 26 September 2007.

3. On 26 September 2007 the officer, Inspector McLEAN and Dr GOLDMAN (Equine veterinarian) arrived at 'Shenandoah' Megalong Road, Megalong Valley for the purpose of carrying out part 1 of `Operation Megalong'. The operation consisted of the examination of approximately 50 horses which included several horses having blood and feacal samples being taken. The accused was present during the inspection and each examination was recorded on video.

4. The second part of `Operation Megalong' was conducted at the Megalong Australian Heritage Centre at Lot 1 Megalong Road, Megalong Valley. Both properties are part of the business. About 30 horses were examined at this property with samples of blood and feaces taken from several horses. The accused was present during the inspection and each examination was recorded on video.

5. Immediate official instructions were verbally issued to the accused in relation to several horses that required veterinary attention for lameness. These instructions were also recorded on video.

6. During the inspection the accused stated that she was the proprietor of the property (including 'Shenandoah') and has owned the property for 15 years which carries approximately 130 horses.

7. Based on the initial examinations conducted by Dr GOLDMAN, and the subsequent testing of the blood and feacal samples taken during the inspection, Dr GOLDMAN concluded:

a) Horse #3 (Buzz) - The horse was suffering from chronic lameness due to severe osteoarthritis that caused a large amount of discomfort and pain. The horse was also suffering from a moderate worm burden that caused aneamia. Both required veterinary treatment.

b) Horse _#4 (Brandy) - (unable to be caught for examination) the horse presented lame and was displaying pain and discomfort and required veterinary treatment to determine the cause of its lameness.

c) Horse #7 (Lucky) - The horse was suffering from a moderate worm burden and required veterinary treatment. The horse had elevated Creatinine Kinase levels (muscle damage) as a result of excess exercise or unfit for workload. Sharp hooks on the teeth were also present.

d) Horse #11 (Garys Mare) - (unable to be caught for examination) the horse presented lame and was displaying pain and discomfort and required veterinary treatment to determine the cause of its lameness.

e) Horse #12 (Ginger) - (unable to be caught for examination) the horse presented lame and was displaying pain and discomfort and required veterinary treatment to determine the cause of its lameness.

f) Horse #13 (Sugar) - (unable to be caught for examination) the horse presented lame

and was displaying pain and discomfort and required veterinary treatment to determine  the cause   of its lameness and was suffering from a significant worm burden.

g) Horse #14 (Alice) - (unable to be caught for examination) the horse presented lame and was displaying pain and discomfort and required veterinary treatment to determine the cause of its lameness.

h) Horse #18 (Polish) - The horse was suffering from a significant worm burden that

caused mild aneamia. Blood results demonstrated elevated Creatinine Kinase levels (muscle damage) as a result of excess exercise or being unfit for its workload.

Horse #19 (Moose) - The horse was in poor body condition and was suffering from a significant worm burden that caused mild aneamia. Sharp hooks on the teeth were also present.
 

j) Horse #20 (Kiwi) - The horse was in poor body condition and was suffering from a significant worm burden that caused aneamia. Blood results demonstrated elevated Creatinine Kinase levels (muscle damage) as a result of excess exercise or being unfit for its workload.

k) Horse #21 (Jellybean) - The horse was suffering from chronic lameness causing pain and discomfort to the horse.

8. When spoke to about the offences, the accused indicated that she was aware of the legislation and codes in relation to her business. She further stated that all the horses are rounded up every 3 months and drenched for worms and the teeth are checked regularly by herself and the stockman. The accused advised that the horses are not exercised to prepare them for their work load and that no veterinarians or pain relief had been sought for the lame horses prior to the inspection.

 

9.    A subsequent visit was conducted at the property on the 11 October 2007 to check

compliance with verbal instructions. None of these had been complied with. Written instructions were then issued on the 12 October 2007 confirming previous verbal instructions issued.

 

10. Confirmation that a veterinarian had attended was confirmed on the 15 October 2007.

 

11. On 2 November 2007, the officer, Inspector KENDAL and Dr GOLDMAN (Equine veterinarian) returned to the property for the purpose of following up the instructions issued by the veterinarian on the 15 October 2007. The accused was present and an inspection revealed that the written instructions had not been complied with. As a result, Horse #3 (Buzz) was euthaniased due to severe lameness and further instructions were issued in relation to several other horses.

 

12. When questioned in relation to the condition of Buzz (Horse #3) and failing to comply with instructions, the accused indicated that although she had purchased pain relief for the horse she had not commenced the treatment as she was waiting for her manager to return to bury the horse.

 

13. In relation to Ginger (Horse #12), the accused stated that she had conducted her own appraisal based on the horse's degree of pain and suffering and she did not believe that the condition warranted Bute (pain relief). The horse presented with mild lameness and it was agreed that the accused would move the horse to the main property and mange the horse with pain relief under guidance of her veterinarian.

 

14. The officer confirmed that the horse had been moved to the main property and was receiving pain relief.

ORDERS SOUGHT UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT
1979 No. 200 (As amended)
a:I The RSPCA seeks a further order for costs in accordance with Section 30A(1) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No. 200

OTHER ORDERS SOUGHT

 

 

1 1 The RSPCA seeks a moiety of any fines imposed under Section 122 of the Fines Act 1996 No 99, subject to the Courts approval.

 

Upon conviction the RSPCA seeks an order under

Section 134O 1 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103,

that the defendant report to the Local Police Station to have their fingerprints taken

Courttney Milton RSPCA Inspector Special Constable