Dog massacre aftermath 'a warzone' - SPCA

14 Mar 2010 09:31a.m.

easy goin' wrote:

could you please find out what Rowan is doing now and how many un-rego dogs the puppy in the picture has bred.

04 Feb 2010 03:47p.m.

ursula walsh wrote:

I am sooo outraged the way these animals were massacred. Both b.....s need to pay

02 Feb 2010 02:16p.m.

Kes wrote:

I am outraged, with the cruel unhumane actions of these two men (one of who promotes, "pet care" - totally disgraceful actions)

As an ex-dairy farmer for 20yrs - such cruelty is NOT acceptable in New Zealand or any country for that matter.

Yes, longer prison sentences are on the way by the sounds - but, just being MORE civilised/compassionate would indeed STOP animal cruelty.

30 Jan 2010 09:18a.m.

Fitzy wrote:

How can the SPCA tell whether dead dogs which have already blown up as decomposition sets in on a hot day was "well cared for" "loved" or even "loving?" I htink they are just touting for business and donations. And how is it that Rodney District Council were unaware that Mr Hargreaves was living in a car in a quarry with all those dogs? Surely the owner's own living conditions were themselves cause for concern. As for the council's "no Complaints " story, I've heard that one before. That number of dogs in one place must have been a nightmare for the neighbours. As far as shooting as a means of disposal is concerned I've had the vet euthanase dogs and some I shot myself. Very disillusioned with injection as a form of euthanasia...the dog's yelping as the vet fishes for a vein. Properly done, shooting's kinder, just doesn't look nice. And there should always be two shots, first to kill, second to make sure - dogs have very small brains. Incidentally, What would it cost the owner for registration fees and fines if Rodney District Council choose to enforce its own bylaws?

29 Jan 2010 11:06p.m.

Bull wrote:

It appears it took 20 minutes to kill 30 dogs. That seems to me to be excellent statistics. Very quick. The police & SPCA staff need shooting lessons from these men. If it is to be found that the manner of shooting the animals is cruelty to animals, where will this leave duck hunting, deer hunting and DOC's helicopter culls of feral horses?

29 Jan 2010 06:45p.m.

Estelle Peyroux wrote:

I am surprised that everyone is so shocked. As long as the dogs were killed instantly then I have no issue with this action. Complaining that one dog had been shot in the eye? How long would it have been till some person, perhaps someone jogging was attacked by a pack of his dogs.

29 Jan 2010 03:54p.m.

Fitzy wrote:

When I was farming a "dog lover" next door would not dispose of unwanted pups. Result: a semi-feral bitch, with a feral litter...seven wild dogs living on the back of our farm. Until he day they attacked sheep in the sheep yards and a neighbour shot the lot. There's no place in rural areas for large concentrations of dogs. Apart from feeding, how much care can one man give thirtynine or more. How socialised could they be? How many pups would there be next year and the year after that. Some hard questions need asking of the owner.. like what was he breeding so many dogs for? The shooters were inconsiderate too... they may have had permission, however gained to shoot the dogs, but why leave them lying around for the owner to dispose of? Surely they could have saved him and themselves of grief by loading them into a truck and taking them off for burial. Killing numbers of animals is by definiition a horrible job, but the alternatives are unrealistic. When I tried the get the SPCA and dog control to do something for a permanantly chained and barking dog, the Dog Control man's answer was to ahvew the owner metal the area the dog thrashed around in to reduce the mud and the SPCA wasn't interested unless the dog "was starving." The SPCA didn't cover themselves with glory in this case either. Holding press conferences and offering opinions on what might have happened might be good publicity, but it seems the shooter's worst sin was that they didn't make every shot a good one. Emoting over a shot through the eye shows a sad ignorance of anatomy...it was likely a good brain shot. I look forward to seeing the police, some of whose members have had adverse publicity (remember the dog the policeman couldn't hit at close range) cover their poor marksmanship prosecuting this case.

29 Jan 2010 12:46p.m.

K wrote:

Never ever mention children in a matter such as this, it is irrelevant to the killings anyway. Why should human children matter any more than any other young living being? These people probably do not like other animals or consider themselves animals. This is an example of our selfish tendency to only be concerned for ourselves and our own kind.

29 Jan 2010 12:14p.m.

Bridgette wrote:

To Rose and Jacou,
both the SPCA and council had no complaints. Why did Mendoza's neighbours not file complaints? Most people would try a few times with complaints if they weren't actioned then you could always go to the Media and he would have been heard alright. If this Mr Mendoza was really in the right why isn't he talking? As far as I can see they didn't complain but took the law into their own hands. Do you know that some pictures were so horrific they couldn't show them on tv on any of the news channels? None of these dogs hurt women or children. The SPCA inspectors that investigated the scene now need counciling and I imagine it would be something they will never forget. They also said the dogs were well cared for and healthy. When Mr Mendoza's neighbours went to talk to Mr Hargreaves they were not attacked. So these poor dogs died an inconceivably vicious and agonising death and most likely were innocent. A lot of them were puppies and they by no means did they deserve this treatment. When dogs are put down they are in a peaceful state and put to sleep. While the owner should never have bred some many dogs there are ways to go about doing things. I can't even imagine the type of people that these 2 men would be to be able commit such a heinous crime. They need to put in jail for more than 5 years. If they can kill so many dogs so inhumanely and viciously then who knows what they are capable of. One dog was shot in the eye; others were shot repeatedly not even dead and left to die a miserable death????? While some tried to escape but there was nowhere to go so they all knew what about to happen. It truly makes me sick to the stomach. How can that be acceptable in this day and age. You know what there is still no proof that Mr Hargreaves dogs killed the fox terrior and even if there was there are laws, agencies and systems in place for this type of thing.

29 Jan 2010 10:29a.m.

Michelle wrote:

After reading many of the comments posted, I see that Rowan seems to be getting a pasting. The fact remains, that a lunatic with, horror of horrors, a gun licence, can go onto a property and slaughter pets is abhorrent, as yet no physical proof as to whose dogs attacked poor Mr Mendoza's pet. Mr Hargreaves may have consented to have his dogs culled, but humanely, not like a Rambo movie, in all it's bloody glory. My sympathies to Rowan, who is a harmless man that has an alternative lifesyle, so what! and the other two Karma is a bitch.