A Charnwood man who under-fed his dog and failed to notice it had testicular cancer has been fined and banned from having a pet for a decade.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Justin Herring was also ordered to sign a one-year good behaviour order and pay court costs.
Despite being taken into RSPCA care, the dog had to be destroyed.
RSPCA ACT said it was pleased to see the magistrate ban the offender from pet ownership as part of her overall sentencing.
Herring said he thought he fed the golden retriever enough and did not notice the dog's enlarged testicles.
He was sentenced in ACT Magistrates Court on Friday, having been found guilty on charges of failing to seek veterinary treatment and failure to provide food or water.
The court heard RSPCA inspectors seized the dog, named Toohey, from Herring's Northside home in May last year.
It was extremely thin, its hips and ribs were visible and it had an enlarged testicle.
Herring reported the dog had last visited the vet six years earlier after it ate snail bait.
A veterinary opinion said Toohey had been eight to 10 kilograms underweight due to being under-fed.
The vet also found he had scabbing on his ears, likely from fly bites, and his grossly enlarged testicles had been the result of a cancerous tumour.
Herring surrendered Toohey to the RSPCA and the eight-year-old dog gained weight while in the organisation's care but was put down in July after tests indicated the cancer had spread to its abdomen.
Herring pleaded not guilty to the charges, arguing he fed the dog what he thought had been an adequate amount.
He also said he had treated the fly bites, and did not realise the testicle had a tumour.
Special Magistrate Maria Doogan found Herring guilty, banned him from having an animal for 10 years and fined him $400.
Herring was also ordered to sign a good behaviour order and pay other court costs.
RSPCA ACT chief executive Tammy Van Denge said: "We were really pleased to see the ten-year animal ownership ban that was given as part of the sentencing.
"This is the second case in a row where the magistrates have used their available powers to ensure that a person found guilty of animal cruelty will not be allowed to repeat this offence towards any another animal in the near-term."
