RSPCA Were they right or wrong on this one?

[bexVN]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019685/Gr...

Now I know we may not have the full story but I'm still trying to get my head around the benefit of tagging a 71 year old lady for this.

She admits she couldn't see the decision she needed to make. I also know many people could be wearing tags if we acted upon everyone who left their pets too long.

Whilst they were right to make the decision for her and were right to reprimand her, the fact she has been allowed her other dog back suggests taking her to court was uneccessary and very harsh.

We had a buddhist couple who let their lab die naturally, he was a very well loved pet who they spent thousands on but they still left him to die even though he had crippling arthritis and could barely walk for a few months. At the end of the day we (as in my line of work) do have to respect the owners decisions to some extent even if we don't like it.

Anyway was curious to know others thought about this.

[fluffnik]

The magistrates need sacked, the RSPCA need a sense of proportion.

[Sam_68]

bexVN said:

Now I know we may not have the full story but I'm still trying to get my head around the benefit of tagging a 71 year old lady for this.

Quite. I can't imagine any scenario where they would be benefit in forcing a 71 year old lady to wear an electronic tag - what the hell is it supposed to achieve?

Notwithstanding the obvious difficulty she had in recognising the point at which it would have been more humane to have the dog destroyed (and given slow, progressive, age-related deterioration, where exactly do you draw the line?), she can't have cared for the animal too badly through its life for it to have reached that age in the first place... thats extraordinary longevity for a labrador.

I also find it slightly ironic that you can be prosecuted for allowing a dog to reach a natural death, whereas you can (technically) be prosecuted for exactly the opposite with a terminally ill or extremely decrepit human being.

[davepoth]

fluffnik said:

The magistrates need sacked, the RSPCA need a sense of proportion.

Not the magistrates' fault. They get presented with the evidence, and case law would have shown that failing to have an animal put down when it was clearly suffering was cruelty. They are then severely limited as to what sentence to hand down, and I expect the sentence given was at the lower end; certainly they could have taken her other dog away but didn't.

[BlackVanDyke]

Why on EARTH tag her? What would it possibly achieve? I don't have much of an understanding of the legal stuff but I understand it's possible to hand down a suspended sentence for pretty much anything where the magistrate/judge feels it appropriate.

She let the dog down, badly. For someone who clearly loved their pet as much as she did that's going to be more punishment than anything any court could possibly impose.

[fluffnik]

davepoth said:

Not the magistrates' fault.

Yes it is, there's always an absolute discharge...

[Jasandjules]

There must be more to this - the RSPCA say the dog might not needed to have been put down if she'd gone to the vet sooner? And putting it to sleep for arthritus and conjuctivitus?

[paintman]

Conditional discharge - 'don't do it again' basically - would have been a better option.
But as already said, I doubt the paper has given the WHOLE story.

[aizvara]

Jasandjules said:

There must be more to this - the RSPCA say the dog might not needed to have been put down if she'd gone to the vet sooner? And putting it to sleep for arthritus and conjuctivitus?

It does seem odd.

Also, I'm not convinced by this whole "its a kindness" mantra in general: dogs (and even more so cats) actually have a really high tolerance for pain. How is it OK to prosecute someone for not killing an animal when we've no real idea whether the animal would prefer death over pain? Of course, there are going to be situations where the decision is clearer one way or another.

Heading O/T: I know of one situation where an elderly woman had a stable of perfectly healthy horses put down as she felt she was nearing the end of her own life ("so they didn't suffer"). As it turned out she was just a mad old bag and not actually dying at all. Even if she had been about to kark it, I don't see why it was necessary to kill the animals, but I guess the vet just did what was instructed.

[Lippitt]

This is why I struggle with the RSPCA. On the one hand I support any body that tries to help animals, but on the other I find the RSPCA and their methods often very strange. This is why if I have spare money I prefer to give it to smaller charities where I know it is going directly to the animals rather than persue cases like this.
I don't condone what the lady did, but the punishment seems completely disproportionate.
I suppose it is easier to pick on old ladys than it is to tackle the sick thugs that organise dog fighting...

[rpguk]

Despite having my own reservations with the RSPCA, I'm going to reserve judgement on this one until I read a halfway credible newspaper report.

1 - It's in the Daily Mail

2 - Lots of emotive language suggesting that OAP's are above the law. Little actual substance.

3 - They have reprinted the guff about an elderly pet shop owner being prosecuted for selling a goldfish to a 15 year old. Trafford Council issued follow ups saying that there was far more to the story. Unsurprisingly the DM have ignored that and used the case again.

Edited by rpguk on Friday 29th July 10:53

[mrmr96]

Right to stop the dogs suffering. Wrong to take the woman to court. She needed sympathy/understanding and education, not a bloody ankle tag and a cerfew.

[bexVN]

I agree with the fact that it is the Daily mail and that there is only one side of this story but if I'm honest I believe this is something the RSPCA would do. If she was such a bad owner she would not have been allowed to have the other dog back and that's what stood out for me.

[Sam_68]

Even acknowledging that we won't be getting the whole story, can anyone suggest any reason why a curfew enforced by electronic tag would be appropriate?

I mean, WTF is she going to be doing? Stalking the streets at dead of night looking for someone's spaniel to abuse?

[rpguk]

Sam_68 said:

Even acknowledging that we won't be getting the whole story, can anyone suggest any reason why a curfew enforced by electronic tag would be appropriate?

I mean, WTF is she going to be doing? Stalking the streets at dead of night looking for someone's spaniel to abuse?

Not that I agree with it, but isn't tagging used as a punishment rather than being solely to prevent further crime? A sort of cut price version of an open prison.

[Mubby]

mrmr96 said:

Right to stop the dogs suffering. Wrong to take the woman to court. She needed sympathy/understanding and education, not a bloody ankle tag and a cerfew.

agree!

[Sam_68]

rpguk said:

Not that I agree with it, but isn't tagging used as a punishment rather than being solely to prevent further crime? A sort of cut price version of an open prison.

I don't know; my impression was that yes, it's partially punishment, intended to prevent yoofs going out on the piss with their mates, but predominantly risk mitigation, to prevent them being out and about at a time when they could commit crime. Certainly, I've known of tags/curfews being used for people out on bail (ie. not yet convicted), as an alternative to holding them on remand in prison while awaiting trial.

Of course, it would be a really effective punishment, preventing a 71 year old from going out clubbing or down the park with her 6-pack of strongbow, so I understand it perfectly, now.

[gog440]

Absolutely 100% wrong.
The old lady admits that she should probably have put the dog down sooner but she loved the dog and as long as the dog seemed happy she kept putting it off as she couldnt face being without her companion. It isnt a crime to be so attached to a pet that you dont want to see them go, misguided possibly but there is no malice here.

[telecat]

I already commented on the Article in the mail. I will never call the RSPCA or take any notice of them these days. They are a box ticking organisation that now has too much power. In this case they should have counselled the woman involved instead of which they harange and harrass. The attitude of the inspectors you see on TV, where you would think they would be careful of their image, is confrontational not just to those that deserve it but to all pet owners.

[GroundEffect]

An 18 year old Lab? I've never seen one that old before.