Anthony and Michael Zink accused of animal neglect

A vet and an RSPCA inspector were among the first to give evidence on day one of the trial of a former Bundaberg snake catcher and his son, facing 56 charges of animal neglect between them.

Anthony Zink is disputing animal neglect charges against him by the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has given evidence in the first day of a trial against a father and son - one of them a former snake catcher - facing a combined 56 charges of animal neglect.

Anthony John Zink pleaded not guilty to two charges of failing to provide appropriate accommodation or living conditions for animals, seven charges of failing to provide appropriate food and water, seven charges of failing to provide appropriate treatment for injury, failing to take reasonable steps to provide for an animal’s needs and one count of unlawfully contravening a prohibition order.

MORE STORIES

> Concern over cardiac specialist shortage

> New airlines line up for Bundaberg

His son, Michael Leslie Zink, also pleaded not guilty to seven charges of failing to provide appropriate accommodation or living conditions for animals, 16 charges of failing to provide appropriate food and water, 14 charges of failing to provide appropriate treatment for injury and one charge of failing to take reasonable steps to provide for an animal’s needs.

An RSPCA inspector told the court about the day he visited the family’s Bundaberg home in 2020 and asked to inspect it following reports they had been keeping animals after a previous prohibition order.

He told the court he was turned away from the home, but returned with police, another RSPCA officer and a warrant at a later date.

Footage of his body-worn camera was played to the court.

The Bundaberg Court
House.

In the video, the Zinks stated that only Anthony was prohibited from owning animals, and that Michael was allowed to own them, but inspectors said Michael shouldn’t have pets in the same house with Anthony.

However, there was confusion around whether Anthony was allowed to have his cat, Charlie, because RSPCA inspectors believed the allowance for him to keep the cat was given prior to the prohibition order.

The Zinks argued the order to be allowed to keep Charlie still stood.

The RSPCA alleged that a chicken coup on the property contained a lot of faeces and that the hens had no perch to sleep on.

An RSPCA veterinarian gave evidence by telephone that some of the chickens had been underweight, had digestive issues and were missing wing feathers.

It was further alleged that a kitty litter tray which was inside the family’s kitchen for their three cats contained a large number of droppings and that some were also on the floor.

The family’s cats showed signs of fleas, and the RSPCA vet said one cat had an ear infection, but the chances of it being detected by a layperson, such as its owners, were disputed by lawyer Lavonda Maloy.

Ms Maloy asked the vet, who had said it was reasonable that a layperson could notice the infection if the cat displayed signs such as discomfort, why it hadn’t been noted by RSPCA inspectors prior to the vet check if it had indeed been an obvious ailment.

The court heard that there were also pet lorikeets and fish at the home and an eastern brown snake in a tank in Michael’s bedroom.

The trial before Magistrate John McInnes continues.