Posted on 06/10/2005 1:56:30 PM PDT by QwertyKPH
A woman who was obsessed with collecting animals and kept 271 pets crammed in her cottage has been jailed for three months.
Rosalind Gregson, 55, showed no emotion as she was jailed and disqualified from keeping animals for life, after pleading guilty to nine specimen counts of causing unreasonable suffering to animals at a hearing last month.
The animals, mostly dogs, were emaciated, often covered in faeces and urine, and suffering from infections and injuries. Nine of the animals had to be put down shortly after RSPCA inspectors removed them from her home off Lindeth Road in Silverdale, Lancashire.
Gregson, who lived in the house with her husband Alan, had initially denied 49 counts of failing to provide the animals with necessary care and attention. But in May, at Preston Magistrates' Court, she changed her plea and admitted nine counts of causing them unreasonable suffering.
The nine charges referred to dogs - two Yorkshire terriers, three Lhaso Apsos, three Shih Tzu and one Old English sheepdog. Five of these animals had been so mistreated they had to be put down.
At Preston Magistrates' Court, Ann-Marie Gregory, defending, told the court Gregson's obsessive animal collecting was triggered when her son died from a drug overdose 15 years ago.
She said: "She never had any counselling, she never had any way of dealing with the pain or loss. That appeared to be the trigger factor in her beginning to collect a large number of animals."
The court had heard Gregson kept her animals in dark, dusty, dirty conditions with little water or food and little ventilation.
When the RSPCA visited Gregson's home in September 2003 they were confronted with more animals than they had seen in one house before. The officers discovered 246 dogs, 16 birds, five cats, two kittens, a rabbit and a chinchilla. RSPCA officer Sarah Hayland said when she entered the property her eyes watered and she found it difficult to breathe.
Asked why there were so many, Gregson said: "Because it got out of hand, its just an obsession, I couldn't stop."
It's always that last one that gets you. 270 and she'd be ok.
Another sad story of animal hoarding. :(
After seeing how the SPCA police have confiscated people's animals and property in my state....I will take this with a grain of salt.
So if a stray wanders in is she going to through it out and risk animal cruelty charges?
Man, I thought animal hoarding was a mental disease? Three months in jail, isn't that a little excessive for someone who is a little, off?
I agree, they always seem to say that they had to put the animals down because they were so sick.
How the hell are they going to enforce this ??? You cannot keep anyone from owning anything they want if you have enough cash to pay for it.
We have farms that were raided and taken over by our SPCA with trumped up charges and a SPCA zoo that gets free stock from seizes the SPCA deems animals inappropriate for people to own.
I have 1 Lhasa and it has an attitude and quite an appetite! Even though they are adorable, they require alot of care,grooming, vet etc. Plus, they are sure they're roalty. Can't imagine they would stay around being deprived.
Ah, you are in Texas. Lucky you.
You are free:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lobby_sessions&s_state=TX
Damn, so much for the animal's welfare. That plain sucks.
California:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lobby_sessions&s_state=CA
Overview
2004 was the second year of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session in California, and although there was a major focus on budgetary matters, several humane bills were passed in 2004.
Name Veterinary Medicine
Bill number SB 1548
Sponsor(s) Sen. Liz Figueroa
Action Signed on September 10, 2004
by Gov. Schwarzenegger
Effective date January 1, 2005
Requires that a veterinarian or veterinary technician who has reason to believe than an animal has been abused must report it to the authorities.
Name Spay/Neuter
Bill number SB 1301
Sponsor(s) Sen. Ed Vincent
Action Signed on August 24, 2004
by Governor Schwarzenegger
Effective date Prevents the scheduled sunset of the law on
January 1, 2006
Removes the "sunset" on the law requiring dogs and cats adopted from animal shelters and rescue groups to be spayed or neutered. The original law had been scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2006.
Name Service Dogs
Bill number AB 1801
Sponsor(s) Assemblywoman Fran Pavley
Action Enacted without the governor's signature
Effective date January 1, 2004
Makes it a crime to intentionally interfere with a signal or service dog or other mobility aid (it is already a crime to intentionally interfere with a guide dog). Also raises the penalty for intentionally causing injury or death of a guide, signal or service dog and for allowing one's dog to kill a guide, signal or service dog.
Name Force-Fed Birds
Bill number SB 1520
Sponsor(s) Sen. John Burton
Action Signed on September 29, 2004
by Governor Schwarzenegger
Effective date July 1, 2012
This groundbreaking law bans the force-feeding of ducks and geese in the production of foie gras. Also bans the sale of the product when made from force-fed birds. Both provisions take effect in California in the year 2012.
Name Exotic Cats
Bill number AB 1857
Sponsor(s) Assemblyman Paul Koretz
Action Signed on September 29, 2004
by Governor Schwarzenegger
Effective date January 1, 2006
Makes it a misdemeanor to perform, procure, or arrange for surgical claw removal of any exotic or native wildcat species.
Name Insurance
Bill number AB 2399
Sponsor(s) Assemblywoman Carol Liu
Action Failed in Insurance Committee
Would have prohibited the denial of homeowners' insurance policies based upon the breed of dog owned and would have required that insurance companies base policymaking decisions on the history of an individual dog and sound underwriting factors.
Name Legal Status of Ferrets
Bill number SB 89
Sponsor(s) Sen. Dede Alpert
Action Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger
Would have required the Department of Fish and Game to issue a certificate of amnesty, for a one-time fee not to exceed $75 per ferret, for any ferrets on the mainland of California that are spayed/neutered and vaccinated against rabies. Two-thirds of the fee would have gone into a fund to pay for an environmental impact report to determine the effect of ferret ownership on the environment. The department would then decide whether to remove ferrets from the list of prohibited species. In explaining his veto, the Governor wrote the following: "I love ferrets. I costarred with a ferret in Kindergarten Cop. However, this bill is far too bureaucratic, and it legalizes ferrets prior to conducting an environmental impact report (EIR). I am concerned that there has not been proper study to determine whether ferrets are detrimental to the health and safety of California citizens and the environment. The EIR should be completed and evaluated as part of the decision-making process before changing the legal status of ferret possession. For these reasons I am returning this measure without my signature."
How do you afford to feed 271 animals? She's probably grateful to be rid of that chore.
Were you around during last year's avian END outbreak?
Talk about Gestapo tactics (according to friends who lived out there).
ping
I'm not sure how that lifetime ban would be enforced.
Might have been prudent to include some provision to get this woman some help with her illness. Jail and a lifetime ban from owning animals doesn't seem to be the right punishment.
And did I miss this, or...what about the husband...was he charged? If not, why not?
Around? The USA? UK? Specific state?
There was an END outbreak mess everywhere. You can't even interstate ship poultry if you are from an outbreak state.
The other bit that's got me thinking: disqualified from keeping animals for life.
The authorities always seem to do that. Doesn't make any sense to me because I think a lot of these obsessive animal collectors need the companionship of animals at manageable levels. They just need some oversight--not much different than home visits from human adoption agencies...and that's something the largely volunteer animal welfare agencies 'could' handle but, for some reason, they are more motivated to seek prosecution.
It was lower California (I think now about 2 years ago) in a specific counties poultry farms..
I have to look it up, but AIR, they were going around in a specific radius of the infected farms 'confiscating' peoples birds...
Pets included.
What was upsetting is that the state 'employees' were poorly trained and may have spread more infection than stopped. They didn't use footbaths on entering private property, killed pet birds in front of owners (I heard). I was on a ping list and was heartbreaking to read about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.