Good old RSPCA again...

Well if the dog was suffering its right they are involved, however this could have been dealt with differently and the old lady persuaded to have her dog pts.

Having an old lady tagged is just ridiculous but maybe there is more than has been reported and we are unaware of the circumstances.
 
Well to get a lab to 18, she must have been doing something right.

I think people get a bit hysterical over old dogs anyway, ive known dogs who have looked like they are on their last legs for the last 5 years, but still bolt across a field to chase a rabbit if the fancy takes them.
 
It does anger me when people can't see what's at the end of their nose in terms of old dogs having had enough of life, but there are far more people I'd rather see wearing an electronic tag. Easy target for the RSPCA - use all those donations to go after the real animal abusers, please, you know, the big guys who might fight back, as well as the little old ladies?!
 
Poor old girl, she was doing what she felt was right for the dog. We have an aged (probably 17 years old) Patterdale bitch and she is a bit incontinent and will wee indoors on occasion and also short of sight and hearing, but who am I to say she should get the needle - you wouldn't do it to your nan. God if I look at the sad state of some local minority groups ponies and the RSPCA say they are powerless to do anything for them?
 
Last edited:
They have given her the other dog back:confused: If she is to wear a tag,as a convicted abuser,why is she able to keep her other dog??????
Sounds like she was a soft target to help keep the conviction rates up.
Similar case re.pony in NL this morning.
 
And yet if you're a drunk driver and kill 2 horses, what do you get a £900 fine a some community service.
Fair enough maybe the dog was suffering and should have been PTS but the sentencing is ridiculous, obviously the RSPCA didn't put up too much of a fight to stop the other dog being returned.
Just goes to show you, don't take abandoned dogs into your home and love them for 11 years it's wrong.
 
CaveCanem said:
It does anger me when people can't see what's at the end of their nose in terms of old dogs having had enough of life, but there are far more people I'd rather see wearing an electronic tag. Easy target for the RSPCA - use all those donations to go after the real animal abusers, please, you know, the big guys who might fight back, as well as the little old ladies?!
Click to expand...

Ditto this, well said :)
We have an old dog round by us that I see out and about. It's ribs are very easy to see, 1 of it's front legs is twisted and he can't walk on it. He also has a huge tumour growing at his back end internally but you can see it's very much there. If he were mine, am not sure I could keep him going like that. But his owner and vet seem fine about keeping him going for now.
 
What is actually really sad is this little old lady did not have any family and friends to help her make the right decision and be there for her whilst she grieved for her pal. Not going to comment further than -pathetic- as far as the tag is concerned.
 
A supportive person to gently talk her through her tough decision would have been far far better. They never get any money from me,and never will.
 
I always find it so sad when I see old people walking very old and obviously frail dogs, when its their only companion it must be so hard to make that decision. Having said that, the lady does look reasonably spritely and was probably aware she was keeping the dog going too long, as EK says a bit of gentle advice might have been a better reaction from the RSPCA than prosecuting. Its all very well them saying the tagging wasn't their decision, but it doesn't really sound as if this case necessitated a prosecution from the information available.
 
strikes me that it would have been emminently more sensible to have a chat with her and either offer help with transporting the dog to the vets or for it to be PTS at home.

The fact that she says she didn't have enough money for a vet call out doesn't sit very well with me but think that advice and someone to talk it through with would have been a much better option!
 
Well maybe I should be wearing one as well then. RE Will. Some of you know my worries but hes happy doing what hes doing. Lumps dissapeared again (will prob come back all I can do is keep an eye), weight is stable for now (not lost anymore, eating three meals a day) as far as I am aware hes not in pain, he brings me stuff in from the garden, whacks me on the leg if I ignore him for a fuss etc. Like ive always said money is there for him when hes ready (envolope top shelf).

I dont really walk him, he gets trips in the car or hangs out in the office.

The RSPCA don't deserve the R in there name as the are a poor and pathetic excuse of a charity at times. Too scared too take on the dog fighters, the horse beaters, owners of laminetics (sp?) who don't manage the disease. BUT HANG ON ITS ALL OK THEY HAVE WATER, FOOD AND SHELTER so therefore the animal is cared for............
 
I don't think any of us have enough of the facts to be able to comment really. For all we know she was visited numerous times by an inspector and told to get her dog to a vet, but refused, leaving prosecution the only option. Or maybe the lady had deliberately avoided any vet treatment for her sick dog because she feared him being put down. There is probably more to this than just a reluctance to have the dog pts, and it seems v unfair to flame the RSPCA without the facts.
 
Well first off this is the daily mail and they do like to sensationalize sometimes, so there are likely facts that we're missing... Anyway I think that it is right that the RSPCA intervened and that the dog was eventually PTS. Anyone owning an animal has a duty to provide appropriate care to that animal, which includes veterinary care when that animal is ill. This dog had untreated arthritis, conjunctivitis and some kind of skin complaint and so was likely in a fair amount of pain. I have no issue with people keeping old dogs going so long as they have appropriate pain relief and treatment for their ailments and they're still enjoying a good quality of life. (My little cav with heart problems, back problems and elbow and shoulder problems is approaching the end of the line, still fairly comfortable at the moment on strong painkillers and her heart meds but when that changes the appropriate decision will be made) People who claim the "I can't afford a vet to come out" excuse do not sit well with me. There are quite a number of specialist pet / vet taxi companies out there now and likely at least one of them would have been able to make arrangements (All it takes is a plastic sheet and a towel over the back seat) and if she genuinely could not afford it then there are organisations out there that can help. Have to agree that I don't think the punishment fits the crime in this instance though, the tagging thing is just silly and I don't really see there's a reason for it! I agree that the most appropriate course of action would have been for RSPCA to sit this woman down for a chat and arrange her some transport to get to a vet, but for all we know they may have tried to do that and she could have resisted, fearing what the vet might say. I also agree that it would be lovely if the RSPCA could be a bit more pro-active in targeting dog fighters, puppy farmers, general idiots who keep their horses in totally unsuitable conditions (eg ragwort infested fields, rusty barbed wire fencing, horse that's skin & bones in a muddy paddock, horse that's obese in lush pasture, tied up at the side of the road... the list goes on!). Not their biggest fan but, as it is not them that decides the sentence I don't think they have done anything massively wrong here.
 
Oh good another 'bash the rspca' thread. They didn't sentence the woman they only prosecuted her. Personally I think the sentence was wrong she should have been banned from keeping animals for life. She had arthritis herself, she knows how painful it is and to let her dog suffer like that is disgusting. If she's so alone with no family around her, why did the daily mail refer to her as a grandmother? Her family must have seen the state of the poor dog.
 
I support the RSPCA and will continue to do so. They rescued my Xara not once, but twice before I got her and I've been grateful every day of the last 9.5 years we have been together.

Regarding this case - well I don't know the facts.

It is hard when you get to a certain age to face losing a companion if you have little other support, and it's also not easy to have a dog PTS when you are in a similar physical condition yourself!

It's like admitting to your own frailty - some people just can't face it.

The tag is not the decision of the RSPCA. That will have been the Court's decision. I'm sure the RSPCA were as horrified by the idea as anyone else.

A majority of the problems facing the RSPCA come as a result of the Law.

The Law is an ass, you see;)
 
Agree with Oberon, Gemin1eye and Boulty... first off, don't ever, EVER believe anything you read in the Daily Hate, even if it says the sky is blue. They lie. And seriously, lay off the RSPCA. They're not perfect, but I'm glad we have them all the same. I get really sick of people who talk a good fight slagging off the people out there actually fighting it.
 
I can't believe it went to court - what a waste of money!

I agree totally that a chat and some practical advice would have been much more suitable.

Also agree that in some (dare I say many?) cases, the vets are responsible for keeping animals going for far longer than is really fair.

My mum lost her siamese cat at 18 and had it been mine, it would have been pts at least two years before, it looked awful. I was disgusted the vet continued with treatment which was for the benefit of my mother's feelings rather than what was actually best for the cat.:(
 
For those people dissing the RSPCA...read again -

‘We appreciate it can be worrying to take a much-loved pet to the vets when you are fearful of what advice they might give. Sadly, it may not have been necessary for Dexter to be put to sleep if Mrs Spoor had sought that advice sooner.

‘We did not, and would not, seek for anyone to be tagged electronically in a case like this. Sentencing is a matter for the court.’

‘Sentencing is a matter for the court and not the decision of the RSPCA.

'Our sole concern is animal welfare, and we are sorry that in this case, Dexter was suffering and in considerable pain.

‘The RSPCA didn't, and does not have the authority, to break into Mrs Spoor's home, as reported.

‘An inspector attended the property and was concerned about Dexter so called police who used their powers of entry.’


- The court tagged the woman, not the RSPCA....the RSPCA also is seems, followed correct protocol in gaining entry.

...and some of the comments are frankly laughable! You can tell they haven't even READ the whole article!
 
Last edited:
Oh they have read it they're just so used to blindly hating the RSPCA they'll swallow any lie the DM feed them and spit it back out here. Who's to say that the stupid woman wasnt given advice and help with her dog and chose to ignore it in case she had to have her dog put down? If the RSPCA found the dog and judged it not capable of recovery or living without pain, do you people think it would be ok for them to give it back to the woman to carry on as it was while she came to terms with it being put down? They did the kindest thing possible for the dog (which is what I thought you all advocate so strongly). If she does have another dog, the only thing the RSPCA did wrong was giving it back to her.
 
gemin1eye said:
Oh they have read it they're just so used to blindly hating the RSPCA they'll swallow any lie the DM feed them and spit it back out here. Who's to say that the stupid woman wasnt given advice and help with her dog and chose to ignore it in case she had to have her dog put down? If the RSPCA found the dog and judged it not capable of recovery or living without pain, do you people think it would be ok for them to give it back to the woman to carry on as it was while she came to terms with it being put down? They did the kindest thing possible for the dog (which is what I thought you all advocate so strongly). If she does have another dog, the only thing the RSPCA did wrong was giving it back to her.
Click to expand...

I am sure if this woman had been given advise but ignored it the DM would have picked up on that.

If this elderly lady is so incapable of looking after dogs why did the RSPCA give her other dog back to her? (see they are not sodding perfect)

Yes the law is to blame here
 
gemin1eye said:
Oh they have read it they're just so used to blindly hating the RSPCA they'll swallow any lie the DM feed them and spit it back out here. Who's to say that the stupid woman wasnt given advice and help with her dog and chose to ignore it in case she had to have her dog put down? If the RSPCA found the dog and judged it not capable of recovery or living without pain, do you people think it would be ok for them to give it back to the woman to carry on as it was while she came to terms with it being put down? They did the kindest thing possible for the dog (which is what I thought you all advocate so strongly). If she does have another dog, the only thing the RSPCA did wrong was giving it back to her.
Click to expand...

agree gemin1eye but if the court didn't sentance her to a ban on keeping dogs (something the rspca have no sway on) the rspca legally have to return the other dog. As said no one knows the circumstances, by the fact the police were needed to gain entry it would seem the lady barred entry, who's to say she refused all advise and aid offered as she knew that by taking the dog to the vet it would require pts? People on here really are too quick to bash the rspca, yet if they saw an animal suffering I wouldn't mind betting they'd expect the rspca to act! Yes this story is sad, sentance possibly wrong, but I wouldn't be blaming the rspca, where where her children/grand children through this? At the end of it the animal was suffering, and now thanks to the rspca it is no longer suffering.
 
As has been said many times before, if the DM is reporting on a court case, to make things up and lie and do not stick to the facts of the case is contempt of court. If they are wrong a retraction will be printed and they may even pay costs. Most papers go out of their way not to make this mistake, as you can imagine.
I would not call the RSPCA (well, they do not operate where I live) or their local counterpart because of previous experiences, I do actually put my money where my mouth is :)
 
So you think the DMs story is the bare bones of the case with absolutely NO bias towards the old woman? I thought it was common knowledge that they never present a balanced, sensible view of anything they 'report' on. Slag the RSPCA off all you want, they did the right thing here. I just can't believe some of you are defending the woman who, for whatever reason, didn't seek any vet care for her very ill dog. Yet if someone posted on here saying, my dog has conjunctivitis, mange and chronic arthritis, should I take have it put down then revealed they hadn't taken it to the vet, you'd all be demanding their address to go and get the dog and take it to the vet. Or some nonsense like that.
 
.... beacuse at the end of the day i FEEL sorry for the HUMAN, more than the dog, which in life in general is how it should be.
 
Where did I defend her? I don't think I have 'slagged' the RSPCA either, I put my opinion across about who I would like to see them actively pursue 'AS WELL' as people like this.
Also, I just do not 'use' them, geographically and as a matter of choice with regards to the local 'wing' because of the experiences I have had with them. I am a lot of things, but I hope I am not a hypocrite.
 
I didnt slag off the RSPCA but I do have first hand experience of them as Im sure do fellow posters. My experience wasnt good and I would never donate to their charity.

I did say in my original thread they could have handled it more tactfully and the fact they gave the other dog back meant they didnt have any real worries.
 
gemin1eye said:
Oh they have read it they're just so used to blindly hating the RSPCA they'll swallow any lie the DM feed them and spit it back out here. Who's to say that the stupid woman wasnt given advice and help with her dog and chose to ignore it in case she had to have her dog put down? If the RSPCA found the dog and judged it not capable of recovery or living without pain, do you people think it would be ok for them to give it back to the woman to carry on as it was while she came to terms with it being put down? They did the kindest thing possible for the dog (which is what I thought you all advocate so strongly). If she does have another dog, the only thing the RSPCA did wrong was giving it back to her.
Click to expand...

The DM coverage seems perfectly reasonable to me; both parties have been contacted to give their side of the story and have been given quite a lot of space to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top