States-house ‘zoos’ cost animal charity a fortune

A WOMAN on benefit was found to be keeping 15 pets at her States house - and also had a horse.
Animal Aid was called in and the woman - who had 10 cats and five rabbits - has now signed over the horse, kept at a separate property, to the charity.
Another tenant owned seven chinchillas, 14 cats, two dogs, three or four cages of cockatiels and six degus [small rodents] - and had four hamsters in separate cages in a toilet.
The charity has accused Housing of failing tenants’ animals - which the department denied - and said it could not continue spending thousands of pounds a year without support from the department.
‘Housing keeps talking of human rights, but human rights should come hand in hand with responsibility towards animals,’ said Animal Aid manager Vivien Ferneyhough.
A Housing spokesman confirmed that there was no limit on pet numbers.
‘We would intervene, however, if there was evidence that animals were suffering as a direct result of overcrowding,’ he said
(from thisisguernsey)

I always thought that you had to gain permission to have an animal in States property, prehaps this was an old rule long gone, but after this the States should enable a ruling to restrict the number of pets kept in a States House

Your ideas on this...

Why just States houses. I would have thought a sensible limit should be put on all residential properties. ( and I don't just mean only Guernsey )

Good point Kingcolemk why is it only States house tenants targeted here ? I was always under the impression that you needed permission for pets if you are housed in a states property i am of course willing to be corrected.

Animals and Pest Control
3.14.
3.14.1. Not to keep or allow to be kept any animal at the Property (apart from
small domestic animals contained by means of a cage, fish or, in limited
number, cats) without first obtaining the consent of the Department in
writing and subject to any relevant import licence(s). If the Department
gives consent, the Tenant must make sure that:
3.14.1.1. the animal is kept under control and does not annoy or frighten
other persons;
3.14.1.2. the animal does not foul Common Parts and any faeces are
disposed of hygienically; and
3.14.1.3. the Tenant must keep due control of the animal and ensure that
any noise is not excessive and will not allow any animal to leave
the Property if it is not contained by means of a fence, chain,
leash or other visible and effective means of restraint, or otherwise
accompanied and properly supervised.
3.14.2. Not to feed seagulls, feral pigeons or other vermin or stray animals on
the Property or in the vicinity.
3.14.3. To ensure the removal of all pests such as rats, mice or fleas from the
Property and to keep the Property free of pests.

the above has been copied from the tenancy agreement that all states tenants receive and have to sign.

it makes me wonder if the departments spokesperson has even read the tenacy agreement.

I thought that was the case so it begs the question is to why did someone in housing say that there was no limit on pet numbers. After all the hype in the press the other day with them gaining awards in training etc obviously the training did not include reading the tenancy agreement LOL.

What about the cases you here of all the time at private addresses some involving abuse . I am not saying i condone having all them pets but why was the emphasis on states houses.

Animal Aid is making the distinction between states houses and other houses, no one else. Now sit back and wonder why they are making this distinction. Nearly all landlords regulate how many pets are allowed, if any. Private house owners can please themselves how many pets they keep. States Housing has a landlord, the States. Of the three who is the one that a private company/charity can "attack" to get money from? that's right the States so animal aid may well have thought let's highlight States Houses, not rocket science.

plimmerton
I suggest you visit animal aid look at the evidence photos etc, maybe just maybe you will change your mind.
The reason we work with tenants is because we recieve so many tel calls for help vet bills etc

I do not argue that anim,al cruelty is rife, what I queried is why you are distinguishing between private and public.

The charity has accused Housing of failing tenants’ animals - which the department denied - and said it could not continue spending thousands of pounds a year without support from the department.

The comment above smaks of a golden goose, the states. If animal welfare is the issue more money from the states does not stop the cruelty it is a reactive measure and helps the charity, if the animals are the main driving force then I would suggest getting Housing to stick to it's tenancy rules would be a greater deterrant to stop the actual cruelty before it happens and the charity has to attend.

Absolutely!

It is not money we are after, if it was we would not be neutering peoples pets free of charge, or paying vets bills for those who
cant afford it.
If you read the press article properly you would realise that we where asking the states housing dept if they would limit the number
of pets allowed to tenants on supplenentary benefit. The reasons being it is costing animal aid a lot of money to put some of these
issues right but most of all a lot of suffering is going on

Unfortunately I do not have access to the article and a link has not been posted so I rely on what GD has posted.
If you have asked the states to get tenants to stick to tenancy agreements then for me that is the best solution as I already mentioned.

At least they aren't throwing them!!

Sorry.

Serious topic!

I remember in the 70's visiting a house in Guildford Surrey.

They had a multi storey bank of wooden rabbit hutches down the lounge wall.

The smell.........................................

Now that was cruelty.

To visitors.

I find it odd that animal aid are asking for money to house the parrots that they cant find homes for.

I have a female Black headed Caique and 3 years ago knew someone who gave their young male away to animal aid, I got told and phoned animal aid to say that I would rehome it, as I knew the breed and wanted a companion for my female parrot.

A Graham answered the phone and told me that they like to keep the parrots as an "attraction"

Then this year I bought a young male parrot from a local breeder, who mentioned that Sue Vidamour had bought some from him recently, so why when people are offering to home them and they are buying more in do they say that they cant rehome them?

Cynical me looks at cats, two a penny as far as value goes but parrots are a very expensive item. Could it be that the Charity are picking what animals they are keeping as "attractions" or even pets. but asking for funds to house them is a bit off.

Animal aid rounded up ferrel cats from the town area and released them ferrel again on land behind the prison and most were found dead because they were used to ripping open binbags or were killing pheasants that were being bred, the owner of the land found them strarved, also what was that all about when they went in the paper and said the island had a shortage of cats!!

dO YOU HAVE PROF OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

seems like we have somebody with a big wooden spoon trying to stir things up kat.i have been to animal aids sanctuary and there is no way the staff would do what has been suggested bynross.maybe he/she shouldm pop in there and see for themselves

I do not believe for one minute that Animal aid would be guilty of such a practice........when I had the Imperial Tearoom (many years ago) we had so many feral cats it was heartbreaking - but the worst bit was that most of them had problems with their blood (like lukemia) so when they were rounded up they had to be humanely put down.....not nice, but necessary as they would have died anyway, but slowly and painfully!

kat wrote:dO YOU HAVE PROF OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

Is there proof they didnt.

The property owner told me about 3 years ago, not sure how long before that it happened but as for the "shortage of cats" comment, that was a headline in the press!!

As for the parrott thing, I was deffinitly %100 told by Graham (whoever he is) that they like to keep them as an "attraction" I was also told by the person that sold them to her that Sue payed cash for some locally bred Macaws and Conurs for the aviery at animal aid

karma wrote:I do not believe for one minute that Animal aid would be guilty of such a practice........when I had the Imperial Tearoom (many years ago) we had so many feral cats it was heartbreaking - but the worst bit was that most of them had problems with their blood (like lukemia) so when they were rounded up they had to be humanely put down.....not nice, but necessary as they would have died anyway, but slowly and painfully!

There are several colonies of feral cats on the south coast cliffs that have leukaemia hence if your puss lives near the cliffs he/she should have a jab to resist the infection.
Who rounded the cats up from the Imp' area was it AA or someone else. If it was someone else then the arguement above is invalid as regards to AA. Ross intimates that there is a shortage of cats and there has been however feral cats can not be tamed, well not unless you have oodles of time and patience and thick skin resistant to cat claws.
But getting back to the original point should AA be given funds to house unwanted parrots. I would suggest that if they are not being housed or bought in to provide and attraction then AA should pay for the aviary.

Thistle I must be missing something but why would someone want to stir things up. It is a brave statement to make and can be disproven. But because staff are nice at the sanctuary it does not mean that they have not rounded cats up and put them in a nicer rural location without thinking of the ecological implications, ie no food for the amount of cats placed.
Graham, I believe is Sue Vidamours partner, but I stand corrected if wrong. I know Graham from way back and he was always a nice enough guy.

The only difference in the way that AA and the Animal Shelter operate is that one is voluntary and the other is paid for - so guess you do not volunteer to be cruel to animals - IMO it would not make sense giving up your time to do this.....

So they do relocate by trapping and releasing, so what has been said could well be true. The contentious part would be "most were found dead because they were used to ripping open binbags or were killing pheasants that were being bred"
I have heard of feral cats in Petit Bot killing pheasants and I think they had been neutered and released. I would be more intersted to know how the cats are monitored after release before I believed either account. This would include times attended, cats seen and state they were in. My reason being that a land owner will see the cats more often than an AA monitor visiting every now and again so his version may well be true. However seeing one or two doesn't make it that most are starved.

Animal aid do have animals best interests at heart, I think but some things they do just dont make sense, like rounding up cats and chickens and passing the problem on to someone else. Ferrel cats should either be kept in a cage or put down because they will only spread desease, not let to roam someone elses property and to kill their animals. Also, bringing in problem dogs from the UK that can be dangerous, unfortunately there are idiots that breed dogs for profit and dont care what hereditary deseases they are passing down or who they sell them to, the dogs get mistreated or neglected and become nervous and unstable, I dont think its a good idea to bring these dogs over here and there have been ocasions where dogs from animal aid have been put in to unsuitable homes, or telling some one that a dog is much younger by about 10 years for the new owner to be told by a vet that the dog is basically on its last legs and has diabetes and had to have all its teeth taken out.

I may be mistaken but the property owner im talking about lives behind the prison, he did breed pheasants and may still do, I took it that he meant at his home address, it could have been down south? But he deffinitly said they were rounded up and dropped there and were either clever enought to kill the pheasants and be a nuisance or starved to death.

Also, I didnt say anything about "Grahams" character, I just said that it was a "Graham" that told me I couldnt rehome the Parrott because Animal Aid wanted to keep them as an "attraction", that was the actual word he used and also, yes they have bought (paid for) Parrotts in whithin the last few years.

There used to be pheasants bred at the Castel end of Track Lane in an old vinery. That is not too far from the back of the Prison when people are talking.

I realise that "Also, I didnt say anything about "Grahams" character," I just added it in as an aside.