News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 'Cruel' farmer can't afford $300,000 costs 

'Cruel' farmer can't afford $300,000 costs

09 Nov, 2008 08:17 PM
The RSPCA reckons 72-year-old Ruth Downey is a lousy farmer, so it shot 48 of her cattle, took her to court, and gave her a $300,000 bill.

Mrs Downey reckons the RSPCA knows nothing about managing stock during a drought and argues her three decades' experience raising cattle in one of the toughest parts of NSW makes her an expert.

The veteran farmer has less than two weeks to comply with a magistrate's order that she pay the RSPCA's $295,488.99 costs.

She doesn't have the money and doubts her 580-hectare property would fetch that much, even if she could find a buyer.

"It would leave me completely destitute if I had to sell up," she said.

Despite being found guilty of 48 charges of aggravated cruelty and 48 charges of failing to provide proper and sufficient food to cattle, she insisted she knows best.

Mrs Downey, who now has 53 head of cattle on her property at Pilliga, in the State's far north-west, said the area had been in drought almost continually since 2000.

During the hardest times, she hand-fed her dairy cattle every day, driving 70 kilometres to Baradine each week to pick up a tonne of supplements and sourcing hard-to-find hay where she could.

"Those cattle were lean but strong," she said. "Thirteen of them had calves and they were still chewing their cuds - and the cuds are the first thing to go if they haven't got enough food."

National Party MP Andrew Stoner said: "If there was a more constructive way for the RSPCA to deal with these cases I am sure the farming community would welcome it.

"There has to be a better way than hiring a QC to make sure an old lady gets belted and driven off her farm."

RSPCA chief inspector David O'Shannessy said the outcome could have been different if Mrs Downey had accepted advice.

"There is no doubt that her lack of finances contributed, however, the fact is she failed to follow any advice that was given to her," Mr O'Shannessy said.

"Mrs Downey was not receptive to any of the advice she was given of her management decisions in times of drought.

"The frustration in this case is had some of the advice been taken, it wouldn't have progressed."

It was the general rule, he said, that legal action was taken when an animal was put down.

He refused to say what action the RSPCA might take if Mrs Downey failed to pay the legal bill.

The RSPCA was "sympathetic to the significant strain that drought places on livestock owners" but drought did not excuse them from the responsibility to ensure animals in their care were appropriately fed.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Strewth mate! $300,000 could buy a lot of hay! If the RSPCA knows so much about looking after drought affected cattle, why in the hell didn't they help the lady by buying and providing hay for her if she couldn't afford it herself? They have to use legal muscle instead. No humanity enters the equation with these sorts.
Posted by Trugger, 9/11/2008 9:48:41 PM
we had a case in 1990, when we closed our meat plant down for xmas holiday in Kempsey NSW. the rspca came along and shot 60 sheep, with police revolvers, for being thin. they had not the sense to shoot the sheep in the head, they aimed for the heart. These sheep were plain trade ewes for the manufacturing meat trade, they had been purchsed two days before in the market at Dubbo. As if not ban enough in 2001, the rspca did the same at our farm in Victoria, with sheep again being held on the farm en-route to the meat works. This shoot first, ask questions afterwards is not new. they are a bloody disgrace to Australia and a parasite on the community. No one wants to see cruelty and in the farming and meat industry it is fortunatley very rare. Thin animals are usually the most hardy, otherwise they would be dead. We have seen enough of these people involving themselves in the live shipping trade. a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Aldo Gallo Argentine Beef Packers SA
Posted by abp, 10/11/2008 6:17:58 AM
The worst case of farmer victimisation I have heard. The farming community should condemn the RSPCA for their actions. Some of the cattle were gut shot - absolutely shocking. Cattle that had NLIS tags were not scanned and just buried on the stock route and are still on Mrs Downey's account. The police should charge the RSPCA and the RLPB ranger in attendance for contrevening the NLIS legislation.
Posted by brad, 10/11/2008 7:35:31 AM
Quote "comply with a magistrate's order that she pay the RSPCA's $295,488.99 costs". Come off it!! The RSPCA should keep their hands out of the rural sector. I guess by extending their so called interests on to drought-stricken farms they can find the money to keep the RSPCA up and running. I personally have put in a complaint about a starving horse that was so hungry could catch a biscuit of hay in mid air by it's teeth like a dog catching a frisby and of course what did the rspca do? nothing!! But then rings up our property and has a nerve to suggest we give them a donation to save animals!! I suggest to the rspca to stay out of the rural sector as they don't have the experience of livestock or the knowledge to interfere especially when the country is in drought. Since when does it cost $295,488 to put down 48 head of cattle!! This story above is unjust and the lady in question should be compensated and offered aid, not discriminated against and used as a way to profit the RSPCA's expenses!!!
Posted by shelly, 10/11/2008 8:03:09 AM
These geeks should stick to injured koalas and cats up trees! The RSPCA has been hijacked by radical greenie/vegos with a hidden agenda. Several of the cattle jumped fences attempting to escape the rifle - they can't have been too weak!
Posted by Bert, 10/11/2008 8:28:45 AM
The RSPCA is a charity whose agenda is not representative of Australia, as a collective Australians, do not elect someone to the society to represent their views. State Governments have abrogated their responsibilities and given powers of authority to them. I find it absolutely unbelievable that to shoot 48 animals would cost $295,488.99, and this is supposed to be Australia's authority on animal welfare. Instead of giving drought stricken farmers the Jack Boot treatment for that cost they could have provided feed to the animals for many years. It's time someone held the RSPCA accountable.
Posted by Alan Mears, 10/11/2008 8:35:39 AM
Wow! The RSPCA are taking a tough stance! I would like to know what this lady's options were and how many others there are in Australia in a similar situation! If the cattle were in such bad condition, why didn't the RSPCA take them from this poor, old woman before it was too late - or is it because they couldn't afford to feed the herd either! Isn't there anything in funds to help farmers in this situation or is Australia really that worse off that it can't offer assistance in anyway? How about the RSPCA? Do they know of anyone that could help out people in this situation? Like I said, it would have been better for the RSPCA if readers could see their suggestions rather than presume what they did. Not a very good 'PR' exercise for them, is it?
Posted by Esme, 10/11/2008 8:50:53 AM
If there is a sucessful prosecution against this manager of livestock (and there is) then she should lose the right to the cattle and face a full penality. Real producers, ones who can properly manage their land (in good times and bad) and who genuinely care for their stock, should not be branded by the community as irresponsible and cruel. The only way to prevent urban communities viewing us as ratbags is to ensure that the people who violate the law are held to account. If we protect or defend such behaviour then the community will act to put in even tougher legislation - and give nutters like PETA or Animals Angels more support!
Posted by AKP, 10/11/2008 9:04:56 AM
What a disgrace. And where was the RSPCA when the Minister for EPA failed to provide sufficient food for his Kangaroo herd? They just sat on their useless butts, polished their jack-boots and watched as the Minister's 'Roo herd was busily munching away on Mrs Downey's fodder reserves, that's where. Is anyone in any doubt, now, that there is one legal standard for them and another altogether for ordinary folk?
Posted by Ian Mott, 10/11/2008 10:18:28 AM
I cannot comment on this lady and if she did or did not do the right thing. However, the RSPCA has yet again lost huge respect in the community for a bungled operation and their right to shoot first and ask questions later must be challenged. The old RSPCA would have helped the lady manage the situation and not give lawyers a huge windfall... shame on you and I hope the RSPCA is made publicly accountable - at the very least those involved must be sacked and never be given such discretion again.
Posted by Wombatdreaming, 10/11/2008 10:32:28 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Will farmers be better off if agriculture is included in a carbon emissions trading system?

Yes - selling carbon will make us more profitable
(23%)

No - carbon taxes will increase our costs
(46%)

Undecided - We need more information
(31%)

Total Votes: 574
Poll Date: 09 November, 2008

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
2010 Beef & Cattle Directory
 
Rural Bookshop
 
S&L Twitter
 
S&L Facebook
 
photo gallery


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...