# Worcestershire-based Stephen Rowlands in court over mistreatment of animals



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Worcestershire-based Stephen Rowlands in court over mistreatment of animals*

A CELEBRITY wildlife expert has avoided going to prison despite admitting he kept his exotic animals in “unspeakable” conditions. 

Stephen Rowlands, who runs Tropical Inc and has appeared on ITV’s Alan Titchmarsh Show showing off his exotic creatures, was handed a 12-week jail sentence, suspended for two years after being found guilt of 34 counts of not providing a variety of animals with a suitable habitat.

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/local/10811978.Wildlife_expert_admits_animal_cruelty/


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm struggling to understand why he wasn't banned, especially when they are saying he caused a great deal of suffering to the animals??? :crazy:


----------



## Shellsfeathers&fur (Jan 18, 2009)

£100,000 towards the £168,000 boarding and veterinary fees - must have been making a lot of money in his business.

Very sad situation for all the animals involved. I agree he really should have been banned from keeping animals but because he has a veterinary nurse, part time cleaner, carer and students to care for them now a ban is not warranted.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Statement from Stephen at Tropical Inc.

*As you are aware, I attended court on 14th November having been charged under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act. I pleaded guilty to the charges, because the animals that were removed by the RSPCA in January 2013 were housed inappropriately. It was right that the animals were removed for their own wellbeing. The conditions were extremely poor. There were many factors involved, but ultimately the animals were my responsibility and I got out of my depth during a time when the appalling weather in 2012 prevented me from building the appropriate enclosures that I had planned. Other pressures were also mounting and it was actually a relief that the RSPCA stepped in to help the animals as I simply couldn’t cope.
I have learnt the hard way that an integral part of animal welfare is to turn animals away to prevent problems like this from arising. It is better to help fewer animals and care for them well, than to rescue more animals and compromise their quality of life.
Since January, I have moved forward with the building work I had planned to ensure that the 74 animals that were left in my care were properly housed. Photographs of these new enclosures can be seen on the Tropical Inc Face Book page. The second phase of the building project will begin next year and will include an education centre and more animal care facilities so that I can continue with my work. I now have a dedicated team on board to help me and have put many things in place to ensure that Tropical Inc maintains a high level of animal care and expertise. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my legal team, the supporters and staff of Tropical Inc, and to my family and friends for their valued support. I am so sorry that I got into such a mess and let some of my animals down so badly.

Stephen*


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

I'm shocked by the enclosures they were kept in, the animals kept in transport cages for however long it was, must have been going crazy...

They have pictures up now of the new enclosures, but it does seem strange that he's allowed to just carry on with the business almost as if nothing happened.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Just had to look WAY back over the old threads concerning this.

He has a hefty payout to make, but all in all, I think this guy must have the magic touch because he's got off pretty lightly! I too am amazed that he's allowed to carry on with his business. Seeing as this story didn't really make a huge national splash, I wonder if his bookings will be affected? Or is this going to spell the beginning of the end for animal encounters?

It does make you wonder whether any more of them have the same issues that Tropical Inc did. The article really makes the conditions they were housed in sound absolutely dreadful…..does anyone know any more detail?

(p.s. to the RSPCA…I'll have the armadillos, if you're still holding them:whistling2


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

There are photos and a short video on this article if you didn't see it

Wildlife expert who appeared on Alan Titchmarsh's chatshow kept 70 exotic animals in 'unspeakable' conditions | Mail Online


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

em_40 said:


> There are photos and a short video on this article if you didn't see it
> 
> Wildlife expert who appeared on Alan Titchmarsh's chatshow kept 70 exotic animals in 'unspeakable' conditions | Mail Online


Oh my! That really is very bad….much worse than I imagined. I'm surprised he's allowed to keep animals at all!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The Captive Animal Protection Society (CAPS) is the first of the radical Animal Rights Organisation that has jumped on this story to further their own political agenda of separating humans from animals (i.e. ban all animals in captivity) and of course in the process ask for donations….!! 

Know doubt many more of the AR Industry will be coming out of the woodwork in the days to come to exploit this for there own political and financial objectives! 

URGENT appeal to end mobile zoo suffering


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

It's worse than I imagined too. I somehow assumed he had some form of reasonable enclosures indoors for them, not wire boxes with nothing in them. That is no life for any animal and he of all people should have done something about it sooner - he knew he was in trouble.

I'm sorry, this may seem harsh, but after looking at that and thinking that he is going out to schools etc to teach children about animals and how to look after them properly, I think the RSPCA were wrong to not ban him from keeping animals. 

He must have had a really good legal team to get away with that one!


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

From reading the CAPS link,they think there should be some regulations for people using animals for parties/education as a business.Personally i do not see a problem with this and should be the case.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> The Captive Animal Protection Society (CAPS) is the first of the radical Animal Rights Organisation that has jumped on this story to further their own political agenda of separating humans from animals (i.e. ban all animals in captivity) and of course in the process ask for donations….!!
> 
> Know doubt many more of the AR Industry will be coming out of the woodwork in the days to come to exploit this for there own political and financial objectives!
> 
> URGENT appeal to end mobile zoo suffering


And who can blame them when given ammunition like that???

With him and Pauline both being discovered in the same year (i think), it makes you wonder how many other so-called "respected" keepers are keeping their hoard in appalling conditions?

The thing is, he came up with the same old "temporary housing" guff, didn't he? But how temporary was it _really?_ Who's to know that some of them haven't been kept like that for their whole lives? And who's to know whether he had any intention of _really_ making proper enclosures?

To me, seeing those cages piled high all higgledy piggledy and squalidly s***ty is as bad as watching footage of puppy farms. So why hasn't he received the same level of punishment as would a puppy farmer?



feorag said:


> It's worse than I imagined too. I somehow assumed he had some form of reasonable enclosures indoors for them, not wire boxes with nothing in them. That is no life for any animal and he of all people should have done something about it sooner - he knew he was in trouble.
> 
> I'm sorry, this may seem harsh, but after looking at that and thinking that he is going out to schools etc to teach children about animals and how to look after them properly, I think the RSPCA were wrong to not ban him from keeping animals.
> 
> He must have had a really good legal team to get away with that one!


That's what my mum said……she saw a Tropical Inc show during the time when these animals would have been cooped up like that, and he was preaching away that not everyone can keep these kind of animals, and that they need really specific care and housing. It absolutely boils my blood that this was going on behind the scenes!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

animalsbeebee said:


> From reading the CAPS link,they think there should be some regulations for people using animals for parties/education as a business.Personally i do not see a problem with this and should be the case.


Absolutely….back when I was doing it, I would've welcomed such an inspection and then displayed the certificate on the website.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalsbeebee said:


> From reading the CAPS link,they think there should be some regulations for people using animals for parties/education as a business.Personally i do not see a problem with this and should be the case.


The suggestion that they, CAPS, want regulation is a little disingenuous, they want a ban, just as they want all zoos and the like banned.

We have been calling for better regulation on sanctuaries, rehoming centres and education business for a very long time, indeed under the Animal Welfare Bill (now Act) government promised new legislation to cover such activities. 

Perhaps now Secondary legislation under the AWA will be forthcoming!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> And who can blame them when given ammunition like that???


So you support CAPS…..!!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> So you support CAPS…..!!


Errr......where do you get that from? And please let's not go down this road again of constantly putting words in my mouth.....I really can't be bothered with that today.

I said who can blame them for using that kind of imagery for strengthening their campaign? Any lay-man, when faced with those pictures, would feel utter repulsion and could hardly be blamed for assuming that this is commonplace amongst these kinda of businesses. Yes, I do think there should be regulation.....strict regulation! Some of these companies aren't even insured.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Errr......where do you get that from? And please let's not go down this road again of constantly putting words in my mouth.....I really can't be bothered with that today.
> 
> I said who can blame them for using that kind of imagery for strengthening their campaign? Any lay-man, when faced with those pictures, would feel utter repulsion and could hardly be blamed for assuming that this is commonplace amongst these kinda of businesses. Yes, I do think there should be regulation.....strict regulation! Some of these companies aren't even insured.


It was a fair question in light of your comment about, but there is no need to be so defensive….!!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> It was a fair question in light of your comment about, but there is no need to be so defensive….!!


Who can blame me for it, when you (as usual) start jumping on every word I say, throwing around accusations of animal rights activity etc? Change the record, Chris!

We've just seen some horrific imagery. Some of the animals involved are ones I keep myself. It's deeply upsetting. The last thing I want from you is the usual bickering, so feel free to give that a rest, thanks.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

animalsbeebee said:


> From reading the CAPS link,they think there should be some regulations for people using animals for parties/education as a business.Personally i do not see a problem with this and should be the case.


Absolutely agree 100% :no1:

Too many people junping on the bandwagon who have absolutely no experience of keeping these animals.

Not only should they be inspected but they should have experience of keeping the animals before doing encounters, they should have a sound knowledge of their needs etc.

Maybe something along the lines of Zoo Licencing ???


Neil


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Who can blame me for it, when you (as usual) start jumping on every word I say, throwing around accusations of animal rights activity etc? Change the record, Chris!
> 
> We've just seen some horrific imagery. Some of the animals involved are ones I keep myself. It's deeply upsetting. The last thing I want from you is the usual bickering, so feel free to give that a rest, thanks.


As I said there is no need to be so defensive I merely sort clarity on a comment you made, that is all! Clearly you are uncomfortable with anyone asking you questions or clarifying points you make so I shall bear this in mind refrain from doing so in future as it distress you.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

No Sir, I just find you exasperating and try these days to be the bigger man, and actively avoid you. I'd hoped at least in this case that our views would be mutual, and that yet another boring war wouldn't break out!


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

This is just from experience so don't shoot lol.

My wife set an encounter business a number of years ago. As part of the licencing ( performing animals licence ) our local council person who deals with the licencing came around to view the animals and the enclosures etc..
The visit was unexpected, so as to get a proper look at the animals and how they were being kept.
The person was so on the ball, she wanted to know the back end of a fart ( scuse my language ). She wanted to know about the animals, how long we had them, wanted to see the food for the animals, see the enclosures, make sure they had the 5 freedoms etc. No stone was left unturned !!


We know of people some of them we know well who have literally been granted the licence with no visit or contact whatsover. I am not saying that most wouldn't have passed, quite the contrary but ?????

One such person was keeping the animals similar to Tropical Inc and despite being reported numerous times, nothing was ever done.

The system is a farce and varies from council to council.


The encounters business though successful is no longer operating for personal reasons. So I am not saying these things to stifle competition but out of concern for the animals.

Neil


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

As for where AR stands, I sure do hope your ready to fight them chris, because this certainly could turn into something we don't want.

As someone who like many others have, done some rescue work, I have never once, ever, no matter how hard it has been took on a reptile, or any animal for that matter without being able to give it what it needs, you need to know when to say no, I only the other day had a rant about this, you can't take people at face value, and this is a shining example of that, as responsible animal keepers, who care and love animals, it makes it even more important than ever to show that we are not all like that, and even we as a community frown on this. 

It is very unfair to tarnish us with the same brush, I for one give my animals a very high standard of care, I take it very seriously, and this man should have known better, he should not have took them on without being able to provide for them, he should have prepared the enclosures before they even went to him, This disgusts me tbh, even those who are out their educating animals, children about these wonderful animals, do the exact opposite of what they do themselves, it isn't right.

Those kinds of enclosure like feorag said are not suitable for any animal to live in, that sort of thing has no place on this planet, he should have been banned.

I don't want to sound harsh, but it has to be said, though giving the situation I applaud the man for admitting it, and using his own expirience (sad for the animals involved) as an example of poor practice and it can help further raise awareness of just how quickly things can get out of hand, but the fact still remains, this has no place in this community, it has no place on this planet, and it is now even more important for our community to show that we are not all like this.

I for one think this is going to be a rough one, but it is up to our community to demonstrate, get behind those who can fight the good fight, and push you guys forward when it comes to the worst, AR definately will be using this one, you can pretty much bet on that, he let himself down, he let those who had respect for him down, and he has let this community down, and further yet, has showed animal keeping at it's worst. 

I for one am still concerned for the animals welfare, afterall, they are in the care of the RSPCA.


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

kodakira said:


> This is just from experience so don't shoot lol.
> 
> My wife set an encounter business a number of years ago. As part of the licencing ( performing animals licence ) our local council person who deals with the licencing came around to view the animals and the enclosures etc..
> The visit was unexpected, so as to get a proper look at the animals and how they were being kept.
> ...



Too true.

When I applied for mine, it was simply for taking a few of my animals to the local youth groups, cadets, scouts etc and the odd birthday party for friends. I filled out the form and put all of my animals on them. Nothing like the range here, but the list contained the 'standard fair' (large boa, APH's, millipedes, cockroaches, chile rose, corns, royals, a large bull snake, beardies, leos etc). I also included rats on there as we often took them as well (put not if we took the snakes!).

I filled in the form and sent in my cheque.

When we had our visit, two lovely young ladies in jodhpers turned up with an envelope. They came into the front room (where our rats were kept at the time), cooed over them for a few minutes and had 'cuddles' from them.

They were then asked if they wanted to see the others. They replied, "No thanks, we've got to get off". They then handed me the envelope they had bought with them (which contained my license, already signed and laminated) and left.


I was quite surprised TBH as I had expected quite a large and drawn out conversation discussing my intentions, my husbandry etc and had even considered having to explain why the beardy didn't have water in with him etc!



I bought the license, I didn't achieve it.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

bothrops said:


> Too true.
> 
> When I applied for mine, it was simply for taking a few of my animals to the local youth groups, cadets, scouts etc and the odd birthday party for friends. I filled out the form and put all of my animals on them. Nothing like the range here, but the list contained the 'standard fair' (large boa, APH's, millipedes, cockroaches, chile rose, corns, royals, a large bull snake, beardies, leos etc). I also included rats on there as we often took them as well (put not if we took the snakes!).
> 
> ...


That's like Gestapo interrogation compared to mine! I just went to the council offices and sorted it out there!


----------



## Specialist Wildlife (Feb 1, 2008)

*ongoing care.............*




Salazare Slytherin said:


> I for one am still concerned for the animals welfare, afterall, they are in the care of the RSPCA.


 


While the debate rumbles on, I will just remove one thing from it by addressing everyone's concerns about the care of animals removed from Tropical Inc.

Although the RSPCA & the police were involved in the initial visit and subsequent prosecution we were drafted in to deal with all the livestock. Our only task is to ensure their welfare needs are met and that any animals requiring veterinary care are provided with whatever they need at any point throughout the process.

Of 74 animals removed there were 6 deaths in total over the 9 month period, with most of them at the start (typically due to the condition they were received in).
Only 1 animal was euthanized almost immediately (although the vet spent 2 hours operating and providing emergency care before that decision was taken on welfare grounds due to the on going pain it was likely to suffer over an extended period of time).
All others were provided with treatment and pain relief as recommended by some of the UKs leading zoo vets. 
They were all given a fighting chance and lots of care by a dedicated team of qualified staff and vets. Unfortunately even with the best will in the world & excellent veterinary care we cant fix every animal which comes to us.

The task of ensuring the animals needs are met at the highest standard was delegated to ourselves and the zoo vets from the first moment. 
The RSPCA have not interfered with any operational decisions at any point and our instruction from the very beginning has been that each individual animals welfare is the top priority.


We have no role to play in any prosecutions or legal action and have no opinions to offer on the conditions in which the animals were kept, other than to say that they wouldn't meet our minimum holding standards.


We are only ever drafted in to ensure that the welfare requirements of any animal seized is met from the point at which they come into our care.

Once fit (and after any legal action is complete) all zoo animals are placed in the care of appropriately licensed zoos & similar premises.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> As for where AR stands, I sure do hope your ready to fight them chris, because this certainly could turn into something we don't want.
> 
> As someone who like many others have, done some rescue work, I have never once, ever, no matter how hard it has been took on a reptile, or any animal for that matter without being able to give it what it needs, you need to know when to say no, I only the other day had a rant about this, you can't take people at face value, and this is a shining example of that, as responsible animal keepers, who care and love animals, it makes it even more important than ever to show that we are not all like that, and even we as a community frown on this.
> 
> ...


I am always ready for a scrap with the AR nutters, and they will be swarming all over this like flies on a cowpat….!! Unfortunately the extremists will be exploiting this case for maximum publicity (donations) and will endeavour to tar everyone with the same brush – quite simply that is what they do! 

This matter is complex as there are more than one issue at play, indeed there are least three elements: sanctuaries, rehoming and educational displays all wrapped up in this. Under the Animal Welfare Act, the then Labour government committed to Secondary Legislation on Sanctuaries which would have been great, sadly it never happened and the likelihood of any such legislation being forthcoming in the foreseeable future is extremely remote, to be blunt the chance is nil.

There are solutions without resorting to Secondary legislation, which as much as they (the fanatics) will jump up and down demeaning; they know full well, as I do, there is not a cat in hells chance this will happen! Therefore what needs to be done is to be objective, look at the legislation that is available and see what can be done to improve matters, and I think the solutions are not insurmountable.


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

did the FBH have any part to play in this mans legal representation ?


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

although no ban.

12 weeks inside, 200 hour unpayed work an pay £106,580 (correct me if I wrong on that.

for me thats enothe to put anyone off from doing it again. A ban is easy to get round, and to be the easy way out.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> did the FBH have any part to play in this mans legal representation ?


None….


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Draco said:


> although no ban.
> 
> 12 weeks inside, 200 hour unpayed work an pay £106,580 (correct me if I wrong on that.
> 
> for me thats enothe to put anyone off from doing it again. A ban is easy to get round, and to be the easy way out.


I totally agree with what your saying, but I still think a bann would have been effective, it isn't really about punishing the person who does it (even if they deserve it) it is about protecting animals in the future from this kind of thing, from someone who could not see the error of his ways, got in too deep before he could get out or provide the animals he had in his care with what they needed, his justification is fair about this summer, but I still stand by the point that before he agreed to take them, their enclosures should have been done and prepared.

My anology is this, a parent (who just so happens to be a teacher) goes home, abuses their kids, doesn't feed them or what-ever, the kids are took from the parent (teacher) but then the teacher is still allowed to work with kids, see the point I am making, it isn't right, and there would be uproar if that was allowed to happen.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

He should have been banned as well as the other punishment,anyone who can allow animals to be kept in filth like that is not worth a light.He obviously could not give a toss about the care he should have provided and its disgusting he should continue in that line of business.If the cages were temporary,what excuse was there for the filth.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

kodakira said:


> The system is a farce and varies from council to council.


i agree with all of what kodakira said, but i feel my own experiences especially emphasis that point.

i applied for a performing animals licence in 2009 with the intention of doing a few for extra cash towards the animals keep on top of the work i was already doing. i got a quote for insurance first as i figured already having it would speed up the licence process. the first problem i encountered was the 'download and send in' form on my local councils website. i duly downloaded it, only to find that the form was dated 1999 and there was no option to edit this. concerned this would be a problem i rang the council and (after being on hold for 15 minutes while they found someone to answer my question) was told that yes, it would be a problem, but not to worry they'd email me an updated one right away.

2 days with no email later, i phoned again. apologies all round, it hadnt been sent. when the email eventually arrived a few hours later, i promptly filled it in and sent it back. i dont know about anyone else's, but all the form was for me was 'list the animals you intend to use and send the money to this address', no mention of experience, if you had insurance, whatever. 

a couple of days later, i had a phone call from an 'assessor', no, he didnt want to visit to see the animals, he just needed to clarify that i had insurance and wasnt using anything venomous. 2 yes or no questions later, i was informed that i'd been granted the licence, and it would be in the post.

despite countless phone calls the physical licence never arrived. i ended up trading without it after being assured that i was on the list of registered licence holders. i'm confident that despite mounting workload leading to me stopping the displays this year, it will one day turn up.

compare this to my applying for a licence to trade as a body piercer (another one of my sidelines) two years later. for that i had to prove i'd trained with a reputable practitioner (including showing a full portfolio), completed health and safety courses, provide copies of my insurance certificates, the premises had to have a full health and safety inspection (by a very nice, but still mildly terrifying inspector) and provide the relevant proof that my cleaning equipment was in full working order. i was also inspected once a year and informed that any more than 3 complaints about me would be very likely to see my licence revoked.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

miss_ferret said:


> i agree with all of what kodakira said, but i feel my own experiences especially emphasis that point.
> 
> i applied for a performing animals licence in 2009 with the intention of doing a few for extra cash towards the animals keep on top of the work i was already doing. i got a quote for insurance first as i figured already having it would speed up the licence process. the first problem i encountered was the 'download and send in' form on my local councils website. i duly downloaded it, only to find that the form was dated 1999 and there was no option to edit this. concerned this would be a problem i rang the council and (after being on hold for 15 minutes while they found someone to answer my question) was told that yes, it would be a problem, but not to worry they'd email me an updated one right away.
> 
> ...




The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 is, as apparent, from the title a very old Act, nearly a hundred years! In the ideal world this would be replaced by new legislation but as I have said this is highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

What the Act does if require someone to be registered with their Local Authority (AL); it is a one off registration. What it does is actually put the individual on notice with the relevant LA, it also allows the LA to do an inspection at any reasonable time, what it does not do is require the LA to inspection, this is a substantial falling!

I see in some of the other media coverage some inaccuracies and misleading information, noticeably in the Sun. I love their have coined the phrase “mobile zoo”, interesting terminology and gives an inside into what direct CAPS and other sectors of the Animal Rights Industry will be trying to push this – i.e. to try encapsulate this under the Zoo Licensing Act, something which is entirely inappropriate.

The solution I am proposing next week is unless, or until, new legislation is forthcoming the solution would be for “Model Standards” to be drafted to underpin the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, similar to the Model Standards for Pet Shop Licensing. This could be done quickly and cheaply and would make a massive difference; one of the first requirements would be for an annual inspection.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Draco said:


> although no ban.
> 
> 12 weeks inside, 200 hour unpayed work an pay £106,580 (correct me if I wrong on that.


He didn't get 12 weeks inside…it's suspended so unless you're a well known druggie thug, you're pretty much let off), community service (which is a joke), and the majority of that fine is only to cover the rehoming expenses….admittedly it's a lot, but his business must be doing pretty well if he's able to keep it running with that figure facing him.

I think he should be made to live in a shitty dog crate in a dark room for a few weeks…make the punishment fit the crime.:2thumb:


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Just been reading all the supportive comments on tropical inc. facebook page,people never cease to amaze,loads have said what a lovely caring guy he is,how he loves his animals,and what a stand up guy for admitting his wrong doing.What else can he do but hold his hands up.This guy it seems was even doing parties recently,its a total joke he is allowed anywhere near animals again,whatever the excuses were.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Draco said:


> 12 weeks inside, 200 hour unpayed work an pay £106,580 (correct me if I wrong on that..


As mrchriss says he didn't get 12 weeks inside, he got a 12 week suspended sentence, so if he keeps his nose clean for 2 years, he doesn't get punished at all.

Surely if he can employ a veterinary nurse, part-time carer and cleaner and students now, why couldn't he at least get someone to help these animals earlier?

Sorry I'm with Shaun (Salazare Slytherin) all he needed to do was say 'no' when he knew he hadn't anywhere decent to put these animals and carry on with the ones he had and give them good enclosures. Instead he kept taking in more (no doubt thinking 'this 'll be a good one for my business, I'll take it')


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Not all of them were new rescues, as he said that some of them were there because old enclosures had to come down to make room for an 'educational centre'. Saying they were rescues seems like an easy excuse to make to justify poor health.
This has all taken a year, and the works at Tropical Inc. are still 'ongoing' so one can assume that as far as temporary housing goes they would have been a long time in those conditions? (had it not come to light)

Why does one decide to build an educational centre where there is currently enclosures in the middle of winter when you are already suffering from flooding anyway????

They all looked healthy every time I saw them anyway, which is why I was so surprised to see that on this occasion the RSPCA hadn't exaggerated it, and they really were being kept in appalling conditions. I haven't seen them since it came about though, and to be honest I don't want to, I've seen them quite a few times at local events and I hope they don't continue to support him.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Once the local Authority grant you a license can it only be taken off you through the courts? Or could they (if they wanted to) still take his license off him?

It says on the AR page that during previous inspections animals had been concealed from view. On the Performing Animals Act that is an offence but I assume that they were just AR groups and not the LA or the police.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

feorag said:


> As mrchriss says he didn't get 12 weeks inside, he got a 12 week suspended sentence, so if he keeps his nose clean for 2 years, he doesn't get punished at all.
> 
> Surely if he can employ a veterinary nurse, part-time carer and cleaner and students now, why couldn't he at least get someone to help these animals earlier?
> 
> Sorry I'm with Shaun (Salazare Slytherin) all he needed to do was say 'no' when he knew he hadn't anywhere decent to put these animals and carry on with the ones he had and give them good enclosures. Instead he kept taking in more (no doubt thinking 'this 'll be a good one for my business, I'll take it')


The prison sentence did not relate to the welfare offences that was imposed in relation to COTES offences, an entirely separate charges. The RSPCA only laid charges under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act, i.e. lightly to cause suffering. They did not lay any charges under Section 4, i.e. the animals actually suffered. So one would have to assume the RSPCA were entirely happy no animals actually suffered! In light of the pictures that have appeared this seems a little unlikely. Considering the huge costs incurred, in excess off £160,000 this would appear to add further confusion. If Section 4 offences were laid and proven then a life time ban would have been the most lightly outcome.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

em_40 said:


> Once the local Authority grant you a license can it only be taken off you through the courts? Or could they (if they wanted to) still take his license off him?
> 
> It says on the AR page that during previous inspections animals had been concealed from view. On the Performing Animals Act that is an offence but I assume that they were just AR groups and not the LA or the police.


The answer is yes, but only a Court can do so, the Local Authority are empowered to issue licences (registration) but only the Court can rescind it, this applies to most licences.

What this case demonstrates if a failure with the Local Authority to actually do their job properly…….!! That may sound a little harsh, and to an extent it is, but the failure is not just the LA failed in its responsibilities it is also with central government and its failure to ensure LAs are resourced (funded) enough to do the job!


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

I just had a read through some of the comments myself, and I just could not help but reply on their page. 

I am bloody damn sorry about this, but I have to post this (dixon zoo) I am not a busuness or organisation of any kind, so I don't want this to sound liek it is comming from a zoo, this is my page, that I simply use to discuss animals, it is my opinion only, but an opinion that I will be happy to post, and I speak for many when I say this. I stand from a viewpoint of used to having respect for stephen, he was an inspiration to many of us. 

Worcestershire-based animal expert Stephen Rowlands in court over mistreatment of animals, animal keepers who claim to care and love there animals are defending him!!! people never bloody cease to amaze me! THIS MAN FAILED to providee a standard of care to his animals, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED! the conditions they were in had no place on this planet, he kept taking in rescues and couldn't help them, he claimed the summer prevented him from doing their enclosures (which is fair enough) but I don't know if this is just me or not, but before I agree to take on any animal, I make sure I have the enclosure, it comes with the enclosure or what-ever, saying that I do applaud the man for holding his hands up, using his own expireince as a raise of awareness of just how quickly things can get out of hand, or how easy it is to dig yourself in and unable to get out, his punishement is this 12 weeks suspended sentence, £106,580 to pay towards the vet and rehoming costs.

I am sorry but I have just read some of the comments on tropical inc after reading a thread, STEPHEN ROWLANDS should have been BANNED from keeping animals! Surely if he can employ a veterinary nurse, part-time carer and cleaner and students now, why couldn't he at least get someone to help these animals earlier? Clearly hes doing well for himself so I don't buy that enclosure BS nonsense, it is not about punishing him (even if he deserves it) it is about protecting animals from this sort of thing in the future, I am very angry and frustrated that he is still allowed to work with animals, I am very digusted at the fact he is still allowed to perfom animal edicational events, here is an anology a parent (who just so happens to be a teacher) goes home, abuses their kids, doesn't feed them or what-ever, the kids are took from the parent (teacher) but then the teacher is still allowed to work with kids, see the point I am making, it isn't right.and there would be uproar if that was allowed to happen. 

Stephen Rowlands, you can lie to yourself and your minions, you can cleverly wrap people around your finger and play on their heart strings, you can claim that you tried, but you are not fooling me for one moment, you had the ability to house them, you had the money to do so, you had the contacts to help you, you had suppliers who would deliver right to your business door, you have let yourself down, you have let those that respected you down, and much more than that, you let down those animals that you had been entrusted with, they depended on you to provide for thhem, or at least find somewhere that could, and you should have been banned simple as that (anyone who is on the tropical inc page) claiming that this man is WONDERFUL! and his work is good, offering him support, needs to wake up! SOME OF THESE ANIMALS DIED! and in very horrifc conditions! many of them were living in filth, in cages with NOTHING! Many of them required treatment and VET INTERVENTION! whats damn WONDERFUL ABOUT THAT!!!! 

seriously..... this is an animal educator who has been on tv, he has done many education events, c'mon people, this isn't right! I seriously question humanity sometimes, you lead by example, and this is not a leading example! It is a joke he should even be allowed near another animal again after that, Animal rights are going to have a feild day with this, this will seriously have an impact on our hobby, and it will be used for many years to come, (one of our own experts) A MONSTROUS BETRAYAL to those who repsected him, to the animals, and to our community as a whole,!!!! does that sound wonderful, does that sound like he has done good work, what he done, has no place on this planet, I am absloutley horrified that so called animal lovers are supporting the vile and vulgar acts he commited, he should have known better than anyone, he should have known when to say no. And no I do not have one bit of sympathy for those who commit crimes against animals! You should have been banned, and I hope what you have done sits on your concious for many years to come, I seriously hope it impacts your business and education awareness, there are those out there who give a high standard of care to their rescues, look after them, spend alot of time and money on them, get vet intervention as required, those are the real rescues, those are the real wonderful people, those are the ones that should be respected, those are the ones that end up with the animals from conditions that you yourself provided! You disgust me, I am horrified, if this is what our community stands for, I for one can see where the animal rights activists are comming from, they will gain much support over this, and will further fuel a complete bann in the future. Sorry stephen, I have to say it, I am sorry if it sounds harsh but it has to be said, if this is where animal lovers stand, protecting abuse and neglect, im out for one.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

I think the animals would still be living like that today if he had not have been found out,unless he is a halfwit,how could you possibly go into those rooms and not feel anything but disgust.The excuse for not building enclosures because of the weather,well,the new enclosures do not look like they would have taken more than a day to put together.As most know,we are building enclosures all the time regardless of the weather.He is obviously use to BS his way out of situations.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Don't know about anyone else, but we had a great summer didn't we? It was bloody hot and perfect enclosure building weather!

What saddened me was watching a couple of his YouTube vids, and then thinking what those animals had to go back to, once the performance was over :'(


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Well said Shaun! I agree with every word you have said.


Chris Newman said:


> The RSPCA only laid charges under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act, i.e. lightly to cause suffering. They did not lay any charges under Section 4, i.e. the animals actually suffered. So one would have to assume the RSPCA were entirely happy no animals actually suffered!


Unbelievable! :bash: So one died very soon after they were taken away from him and more died later and yet the RSPCA in their wisdom seem to think that no animals suffered?? Very hard to believe.



animalsbeebee said:


> I think the animals would still be living like that today if he had not have been found out,unless he is a halfwit,how could you possibly go into those rooms and not feel anything but disgust.The excuse for not building enclosures because of the weather,well,the new enclosures do not look like they would have taken more than a day to put together.As most know,we are building enclosures all the time regardless of the weather.He is obviously use to BS his way out of situations.


Totally agree!

he says on his Facebook page and in reports that he knew he had problems and was out of his depth - did he come clean then?? No, of course he didn't and he's only trying to save himself by being sycophantic and getting everyone on side.

He'd never get me on side though, because I think what he did was unforgivable - I can never condone any kind of cruelty and neglect is cruelty and he neglected the basic 5 freedoms of those animals. :bash:


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> Don't know about anyone else, but we had a great summer didn't we? It was bloody hot and perfect enclosure building weather!
> 
> What saddened me was watching a couple of his YouTube vids, and then thinking what those animals had to go back to, once the performance was over :'(


All my reptiles spent every day of the summer outside, catching the suns rays, roaming around, fresh air, enriuchment, climbing the trees near my house, here is my igunas sitting around our herb garden where we grow food for them, or sitting in outdoor enclosures (excuse my males mouth) he had rubbed it on some outdoor enclosure mesh, we had to build another one to stop him rubbing the bottom.


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

I am really shocked by this - I have met him and had a tropical ink event for my sons birthday - it was excellent and the staff were really knowledgable and were very careful to keep the needs of the animals covered while doing the event. He talked to me about how the majority of animals come to him from zoos when they over breed or there are some species that are too specialist for them - he also talked about how he took "imperfect animals" from breeding projects that otherwise would have been destroyed.

What makes me angriest about this is that the man has the knowledge of the needs of these animals - he clearly demonstrated it when I talked to him. This means that he decided to keep them in poor conditions - I assume deciding to put profit before welfare. I hope that the publicity from this ensures that people cease using the busines and that it has to cease to operate.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

So we're concluding that he just couldn't be arsed, and is now only going for the sympathy vote, because he got caught!


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> So we're concluding that he just couldn't be arsed, and is now only going for the sympathy vote, because he got caught!


You can't deny, playing on heart strings is a very effective one when you have been cornerd.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> You can't deny, playing on heart strings is a very effective one when you have been cornerd.


Well it's worked for many politicians and z-list celebrities


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

May I ask a question here and it probably going to cause a stink but what the :censor:.

In a reply above it says '' the staff were really knowledgable and were very careful to keep the needs of the animals covered while doing the event ''

Where were the staff when the animals were being kept like this. It is not something that has happened overnight.
It is my understanding that a member of staff reported him but there were others ?. Did no one notice how the animals were being kept ?

Neil


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

That's the point Neil - it's easy to say stuff like this after you've been caught out isn't it?


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

there is no defending or excuses for this mans actions.
Anyone that tries,either outright or by trying to take the political angle to defend him needs to take a long hard look at them selves .
The people that represent our hobby should get behind this prosecution not be little it.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

I was talking to a friend earlier today and a little bit of the conversation was regarding Troical Inc.

My friend keeps animals and he knows that I would have no hesitation if he neglected his animals, in saying something to him. If he then continued to neglect he knows I would have no hesitation in reporting him.

At the same time I know he would do the same to me !!.

Not one of us is perfect and I am certainly not saying I am perfect, as I am not but those conditions are about as far away from perfect as you could get.

Neil


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

kodakira said:


> May I ask a question here and it probably going to cause a stink but what the :censor:.
> 
> In a reply above it says '' the staff were really knowledgable and were very careful to keep the needs of the animals covered while doing the event ''
> 
> ...


Well apparently it was repeatedly investigated, after he tried to keep the animals that were in these cages hidden, because staff kept on making complaints to the RSPCA and other animal right groups, I don't know if anyone went to the council though :/ I don't think it was just one person, and one complaint.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

em_40 said:


> Well apparently it was repeatedly investigated, after he tried to keep the animals that were in these cages hidden, because staff kept on making complaints to the RSPCA and other animal right groups, I don't know if anyone went to the council though :/ I don't think it was just one person, and one complaint.


I can understand that !!

In an earlier post I metioned someone who I reported aswell as numerous others and nothing was ever done.

The person is still keeping animals, unfortunately I now have no idea how they are being kept now.

Neil


----------



## cerastes86 (Nov 23, 2010)

I am kind of struggling to understand how he has been allowed to keep these animals.

First off in regards to his statement, blaming the adverse weather conditions is no excuse for the poor standards of welfare. He refers to the weather conditions of 2012, however seeing the images it looks like the animals were kept in those conditions for a relativity extensive period of time. I used to work in a zoo, I lived 25miles away but still I made the journey to work in the worst conditions. So for me this is a very poor excuse.

Secondly he has been fined in excess of £100,000. Naturally I don't know the size of his companies bank balance, but there are not many companies these days that could afford a considerable hit like that, so I am questioning as to whether he will be able to provide the basic care for these animals given the severity of the fine and the inevitable loss of business following the bad press. After all feeding the animals is probably the most costly part of keeping them.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

He'll probably get away with paying only so much a week for the ready of his life. Because feeding the animals is a business cost, they'll take that into account when deciding upon his payment plan.


----------



## aquajird (Oct 27, 2010)

I am disgusted that this man was not banned from keeping animals. He knew what the animals needed and deliberately failed to look after them properly. When you think of the numerous people that the RSPCA takes to court and who do get banned for much less cruelty than this. I am thinking of people who have learning difficulties or are mentally ill. People who deserver some sympathy and help. This guy knew exactly what he was doing. He went around preaching to others, but did not do it himself. He is despicable


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

I do not regret a word of what I said, I stand by my beleif that stephen rowlands should have been banned, soon after I made my comment on facebook I had some very interesting messages appear, many from normal keepers like ourselves, some who have had dealings with him, and some who have worked for him at some stage or another. I had some images sent I feel should be shared in our community, anyone who defends this kind of cruel act you should be treated just as guilty, its horrific, and can't eve begin to describe how anyone can defend this and call this person wonderful. 

Spot the meerecat.








Armadillo









Tammarins.









I will allow these to speak for themselves.  
This can't be justified, it is just wrong, of the million and one ways there is to keep animals, this isn't one of them.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Isn't there some way of getting the sentence altered, like they did with Stuart Hall? 
If he doesn't get a ban, then it's just sending a message that it's ok and you can carry on


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Was Chris Newman there? Apparently (according to someone who had apparently had friends in the court room,_ yeh I know that's weak_) but *apparently* his performing animal license was revoked... Anyone know if that's true? and what that would mean for Tropical Inc. if it were?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

em_40 said:


> Was Chris Newman there? Apparently (according to someone who had apparently had friends in the court room,_ yeh I know that's weak_) but *apparently* his performing animal license was revoked... Anyone know if that's true? and what that would mean for Tropical Inc. if it were?


Stephen Rowlands phoned me for advice the 4th of January and I visited his premises on the 6th of January. At the time of my visit there were no animals, or virtually no animals on site, he had a few skunks in a large outbuilding that were in satisfactory conditions.

At the time of my visit the animal’s rooms as they are referred too were clean and tidy, what I could not reconcile was the list of animals that had been seized and space available, it was simply inconceivable that so many animals could have been housed in such limited space. Even now having seeing the photos published I still can’t reconcile all of the animals could have been housed in such a limited area.

My visit lasted a couple of hours and after giving Stephen some basic advise, i.e. he needed to engage a solicitor and more importantly a specialist vet to examine the animals removed urgently, I informed him that I was not in a position to help him further. He did phone me a couple time seeking guidance on other issues, COTES offences, but again other than basic advise I did not get involved.

I trust that answers your question!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

em_40 said:


> Well apparently it was repeatedly investigated, after he tried to keep the animals that were in these cages hidden, because staff kept on making complaints to the RSPCA and other animal right groups, I don't know if anyone went to the council though :/ I don't think it was just one person, and one complaint.


I do not think the true story has yet emerged? The story as published in the Sun at the weekend seems implausible to me, why would an employee (disgruntled or otherwise) inform the likes of CAPS (an Animal Rights organisation) and not the Local Authority or even the RSPCA – something is very, very fishy…..!! 

What is also curious is why the RSPCA only chose to lay charges under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act and not Section 4, this simply beggars belief. The only conclusion that I can draw is they (the RSPCA) did not want to see him banned; there is no other credible explanation that I can see.....!!


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, after seeing all this cruelty lately, people happy to punch iguanas in the face, seeing some of the images I had sent to me, speaking to a few on the phone yesteday and conversing on their page, I decided to spoil my guys a bit more than normal by giving them all of their favourite foods.

I have decided that later today I am off out to heavily invest in further enclosure furnishings, for their mental and physical health, I am going to pamper my guys today with a £200 investment just to their enclosures, and I am going to appreciate them in all of their natural wonderful beautiful nature. 

I apoligise to anyone, who finds my responsible standards of care offensive. 
I am further now going to expand my main enclosure by another 6ft, this will be done before christmas, I will be sure to post pictures, again I am sorry if this offends anyone.

but seeing some of this has really given me a wake up call too, of just how lucky I am to have a peice of nature in my home, how these animals never once asked to be here, I am going to spoil them more than ever, pardon me for being a responsible animal lover, I apoligise if I don't condone such horrible and vile acts, he admitted what he done, he should have been banned, it is as simple as that.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> I do not think the true story has yet emerged? The story as published in the Sun at the weekend seems implausible to me, why would an employee (disgruntled or otherwise) inform the likes of CAPS (an Animal Rights organisation) and not the Local Authority or even the RSPCA – something is very, very fishy…..!!
> 
> What is also curious is why the RSPCA only chose to lay charges under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act and not Section 4, this simply beggars belief. The only conclusion that I can draw is they (the RSPCA) did not want to see him banned; there is no other credible explanation that I can see.....!!


This only a question and not an accusation but did the RSPCA house animals with him ?
If so did they not have a duty of care to make sure that animals housed whether temporary or rehomed were getting the best of care ?.

As you will know the RSPCA do home animals with organisations, private keepers etc.

Just a thought !!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Well said Shaun!

And that's a good point Neil - I wondered about that too.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

kodakira said:


> This only a question and not an accusation but did the RSPCA house animals with him ?
> If so did they not have a duty of care to make sure that animals housed whether temporary or rehomed were getting the best of care ?.
> 
> As you will know the RSPCA do home animals with organisations, private keepers etc.
> ...


I do not know the answer to that question I am afraid but it is a very good question! They most certainly have rehomed animals to sanctuaries that they have subsequently prosecute, if that is the case here I have no idea.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> I do not think the true story has yet emerged? The story as published in the Sun at the weekend seems implausible to me, why would an employee (disgruntled or otherwise) inform the likes of CAPS (an Animal Rights organisation) and not the Local Authority or even the RSPCA – something is very, very fishy…..!!
> 
> What is also curious is why the RSPCA only chose to lay charges under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act and not Section 4, this simply beggars belief. The only conclusion that I can draw is they (the RSPCA) did not want to see him banned; there is no other credible explanation that I can see.....!!


It certainly doesn't feel like we have the whole story, there are some bits that are very strange. Though I had heard that they (a number of employees) had informed the RSPCA and there were several inspections, didn't it only get properly inspected when there were photos sent (apparently to CAPS it seems). Don't know why it is that they wouldn't go straight to the local authority though, they surely must know that he has to be licensed to do what he does. All just hearsay anyway really... I guess we won't know as we weren't there. 

It does seem strange that the RSPCA seem to have not wanted to see him banned too, I've definitely seen them push for bans on much less than this.

Thank you for answering wholly 


and Salazare your Iggys are very lucky, things like this make me feel very appreciative of my lovely animals too.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Just been informed they have removed everyones comments and it looks like they disabled anyone from commenting, I think we all knew that was going to happen anyways...


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> Just been informed they have removed everyones comments and it looks like they disabled anyone from commenting, I think we all knew that was going to happen anyways...


They've not removed my comments from their youtube videos. Even if they try, they _can't _remove my comments from some of the school's youtube videos:devil::devil::devil:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

But seriously, aren't one of these groups that are supposed to be representing "the hobby"** going to take some sort of action to try get a more severe sentence (i.e. a well deserved ban)? FBH? BEMA? Anyone???

Some kind of internet petition perhaps?


**not a phrase I'm fond of, but one that the FBH loves to throw around.)


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> But seriously, aren't one of these groups that are supposed to be representing "the hobby"** going to take some sort of action to try get a more severe sentence (i.e. a well deserved ban)? FBH? BEMA? Anyone???
> 
> Some kind of internet petition perhaps?
> 
> ...


I reckon there will be one started soon enough, I have been told, (not sure how true it is) that if the council receive 5 complaints, they can at least redeem his licence for education, and (obviously) it is only the courts who can remove it, but it stops him performing for that time anyways? is that true? if so it could be worth keeping in mind.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> I reckon there will be one started soon enough, I have been told, (not sure how true it is) that if the council receive 5 complaints, they can at least redeem his licence for education, and (obviously) it is only the courts who can remove it, but it stops him performing for that time anyways? is that true? if so it could be worth keeping in mind.


In light of the prosecution brought by the RSPCA I would expect the Local Authority to apply to the Court to have his registration (often referred to as licence) under the Performing Animals Regulations Act revoked. This could not happen at the time of the prosecution as the LA was not party to the prosecution. However, it may be the LA will not take this action as the offences involved (see below) were minor in nature (according to the RSPCA anyway)

In terms of increasing sentence, this is I suspect highly unlikely to happen as he was charged with what is a minor offence, namely Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act “likely to cause unnecessary suffering”, this means the RSPCA were content the animals had not actually suffered………? Had the prosecuting body laid Section 4 charges then a lifetime ban would have been almost certain.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

And I'm still left wondering why? 

There's no question the RSPCA is a law unto itself!


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> In light of the prosecution brought by the RSPCA I would expect the Local Authority to apply to the Court to have his registration (often referred to as licence) under the Performing Animals Regulations Act revoked. This could not happen at the time of the prosecution as the LA was not party to the prosecution. However, it may be the LA will not take this action as the offences involved (see below) were minor in nature (according to the RSPCA anyway)
> 
> In terms of increasing sentence, this is I suspect highly unlikely to happen as he was charged with what is a minor offence, namely Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act “likely to cause unnecessary suffering”, this means the RSPCA were content the animals had not actually suffered………? Had the prosecuting body laid Section 4 charges then a lifetime ban would have been almost certain.


Thanks for that Chris.
I also wonder why, it makes no sense, I guess we will never know.
If the RSPCA had indeed had dealings with him, it would make sense that they would be held accountable for not seeing to it that the welfare of the animals were being met, the RSPCA definately are not popular in the exotic community, to lay down charges under section 4 it probably would have damaged them further if that is the case, it is the only thing that seems to make any sense to me (if it got out) but this has already been mentioned, I guess we will never really know, but the RSPCA, have now lost what little respect I had for them left after that, they seem to pick on the decent ones, and those who deserve it, get off very lightly.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

this has made me really sad....
poor poor animals.
its better to admit you need help than let this happen.

p.s.- the RSPCA do seem to get away with blue murder don't they! :gasp:


----------



## PrettyxPerfection (Sep 9, 2008)

I met this bloke several times, had pictures taken with some of the pets including the Meerkats and the Skunk, they where in such amazing condition, I found this hard to believe when I read the article 

Poor animals  Why did he just not ask for help, get in touch with zoos ect..., instead of making the animals suffer


----------

