Wellsford community divided by dog slaughter

23/07/2012 6:27:02 p.m.

EILEEN wrote:

Embrassed to live in such a country that lets these men get off so lightly. Dont care if the owner had 3, 33 or 333 dogs, that is not the way humane people put dogs down. Absolute disagrace. So much for the old saying - A dog is a man's best friend. RIP litle dogs. You will not be forgotten. My thoughts too for the SPCA workers who have been affected.

23/07/2012 10:02:23 a.m.

Nancy wrote:

Why was this man allowed to keep 33 dogs in the first place? Especially since several of his dogs had left the property and attacked and killed livestock and other dogs previously. Clearly, he wasn't properly caring for and supervising these dogs, and allowed them to become a public menace, which ultimately contributed to this tragedy.

22/07/2012 2:31:39 p.m.

Oscar wrote:

The two men who killed all those dogs had to have enjoyed doing it and having the power of the guns to do it with. No decent person could have done it. I should imagine that both of them felt like 'Rambo' going from one dog to the next. All those little pups just shot to pieces as if their existence on earth was nothing. It makes you wonder what goes on in the brains of those men who can slaughter animals in that way. I know a lot of men who are hunters and they would never ever do that. Yes the courts are a joke when it comes to punishment for cruelty to animals and so there will continue to be offences against them. The SPCA should have better backing from the judges in order to stop animal cruelty. There are a lot of people in our society who do not have any compassion for animals or any other life form. These two men obviously belong to that group. They are disgusting and I hope that their neighbours let them know.

21/07/2012 8:48:24 p.m.

Travis wrote:

There will be an obvious debate of whether people should be doing jail time for killing animals over what can be considered the more serious crimes to people and fit that with the increasing prison population. What is of concern however is that the pair, I believe, were also convicted of reckless use of a firearm which has a considerable term of imprisonment. When people obtain their firearms licences they are informed that any conviction following a prosecution could see them going to prison losing their licence and their firearms and never being able to get either back again or use a firearm under supervision again. To carry out this sort action they obviously have a love affair with their guns and the consequences of a breach of the Arms Act 1983 did not deter them. And maybe that was because they did not believe that they full weight of the law would be thrown at them if they were found guilty. It would seem that they were correct and if that is the case it is only going to reinforce that view for the next set of idiots and the next set of victims may not all be "lower" life forms.

21/07/2012 1:08:01 p.m.

Dutch wrote:

Why would anyone debate this, unless it is to say the sentences weren't long enough to make a message.

21/07/2012 10:21:18 a.m.

Gayle wrote:

I was shocked and am outraged that these two men got away with such cold blooded murder!!! And the judge made some comment about the owner had never registered the dogs implying that it therefore didnot matter as much! They virtually got of scot free, home detention, what's that, grouded! Whoopdee doo!!! They ahould have to work with the SPCA helping with abused animals and maybe they will learn some humane behavour. I am just back from living for 6 years in the middle east. Everyone asks all the obvious questions and assumes terrible things about Islam here. There everyone asks about NZ and assumes it is heaven on earth, beautiful, peaceful and friendly. It seems to me to be the opposite when people can act so cruelly with intent and get 'GROUNDED' Shame on them, shame on the judge and shame one our pathetic laws against violence to animals. I bet if it was some tax evasion crime they would have been jailed for 7 yearsQ

21/07/2012 10:00:38 a.m.

Easy Goin' wrote:

The SPCA was not exercising its powers as did not prosecute the owner for that many dogs kept in atrocious conditions. Those dogs had a miserable existence in life and their death was destined, just hastened, as who would have adopted that many un-socialised mongrels.

21/07/2012 1:10:51 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Cant see the connection between whether the dogs were registered and the degree of severity of this case in regards to sentencing DCJ Mary-Beth Sharp. Are you saying that someone should be granted a degree of licence to cull a neighbour's animals on behalf of the local council? Come on Mr Prosecutor. 3 years isn't a maximum if charge is more than one count. Prison sentences can be cumulative. How many criminal acts times 3 years? What were they doing on this person's property anyway? Next time the registration fees are unpaid does the council have permission to have the offending (albeit loved) dogs dealt with by any means? How on earth is a registering fee relevant to anything but council revenue?

21/07/2012 12:29:39 a.m.

Mark Uffer wrote:

What kind of society prescribes a penalty of "staying at home" or so called "home detention" for sick, cowardly, psychopaths that execute innocent animals for no valid reason other than for fun? The fact that these cowards were allowed to just "go home" after such a massacre says a lot for the judge and a society that allows a judge to get away with sending criminals like these 2 psychos home to drink beer and laugh at the so called judiical system! The decision of this judge sets a precidence within our society and sends a message to other countries that read about these atrocitites here in New Zealand that genocide of innocent animals IS acceptable. It's already known throughout the world that New Zealand is the best place to commit murder or a violent crime because very few people go to prison for more that 20-30 months for killing people. If dog killers get to go home as a penalty, then what kind of message is this giving to society. This judge's ruling basically validates the genocide of innocent animals for the joy of killing. This WILL happen again now because it's obvious that there are no penalties against such immoralistic actions. I'd stake my life on the notion that the judge that told these cowards just to go home hates dogs too. I suppose this now means that if I decide, for fun, to exterminate 30-40 cats or puppies in my neighborhood then I too, will be told to just go home. I speak out for the innocent animals that can't speak in their own defense against a system that allows this kind of massacre to take place without ANY punishment.

20/07/2012 10:48:22 p.m.

Pixie wrote:

If they get away with this what else can people do to animals that can't fight back. The judge has taken away any power that the SPCA had by this judgement. Now people can get away with any cruel act on animals and get way with it.