Small animal post mortem

cptrayes

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,748
Visit site
Any vets around today?

There's a thread running in aad about the RSPCA returning the body of a dog that died in its care to the owner skinned and decapitated.

Would it be normal to skin a dog for a post mortem?
 
Dog apparently died after being savaged by three Alsations, and I was surprised that anyone would need to remove the skin.

Thanks for your info.
 
If it died from mauling they could have taken the skin to see how extensive the damage was to the muscles and the skin itself.
 
equi said:
If it died from mauling they could have taken the skin to see how extensive the damage was to the muscles and the skin itself.
Click to expand...

I am not a vet (just a failed one!) but used to visit a lot of abattoirs. At one I was shown a skinned sheep carcase that was a mass of severe bruising. The slaughterhouse manager showed it to me as he knows of my interest in dogs and, as a sheep farmer, that I am concerned about sheep worrying. He assured me that the sheep looked quite "normal" when it was brought in with only a little pulled wool (though obviously it did not look very happy!). The carcase went straight into the offal bin as it was condemned "not fit for human consumption".

I was also brought in as an expert witness when a gamekeeper claimed a dog in his possession had accidentally hung itself. The vet and I concluded that the dog had actually been worked to death as there was no bruising around the neck area but lots of symptoms of extreme exhaustion.

So, yes, if it was alleged that a dog had been killed in a fight, it would be necessary to skin it. Sometimes there are few externally visible injuries. The dogs that did the killing quite often do not have a scratch on them as the victim, held by the throat, has little chance to defend itself, especially if it is attacked by more than one aggressor.
 
Dry Rot said:
I am not a vet (just a failed one!) but used to visit a lot of abattoirs. At one I was shown a skinned sheep carcase that was a mass of severe bruising. The slaughterhouse manager showed it to me as he knows of my interest in dogs and, as a sheep farmer, that I am concerned about sheep worrying. He assured me that the sheep looked quite "normal" when it was brought in with only a little pulled wool (though obviously it did not look very happy!). The carcase went straight into the offal bin as it was condemned "not fit for human consumption".

I was also brought in as an expert witness when a gamekeeper claimed a dog in his possession had accidentally hung itself. The vet and I concluded that the dog had actually been worked to death as there was no bruising around the neck area but lots of symptoms of extreme exhaustion.

So, yes, if it was alleged that a dog had been killed in a fight, it would be necessary to skin it. Sometimes there are few externally visible injuries. The dogs that did the killing quite often do not have a scratch on them as the victim, held by the throat, has little chance to defend itself, especially if it is attacked by more than one aggressor.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you shed any light on why it would be decapitated?

And, does anyone know why such a carcase, sent back to the owner and supposedly to be used in a court case against someone would be kept in a freezer at the owners home? I genuinely just want to know the truth, whatever it is, and I cannot comprehend an IPCC investigation and impending court proceedings where the carcase (main evidence) would be kept in the owners freezer at their home?
 
Last edited:
*****At the risk of being graphic....****
Normal procedure for a routine post mortem on a small animal would be with the animal placed on its back. A midline incision from the front of the chest to the pubic bone. The skin would then be reflected back from the body wall. The forelimbs would be dissected away from the chest and reflected back. The hindlimbs would be dislocated at the hip and reflected back. The abdominal cavity would be opened and organs examined, possibly removed for analysis by an external lab if any abnormalities found. The chest would be opened by incising through the junction of the bony to cartilaginous area of the ribs, the sternum and cartilaginous ribcage discarded. The chest cavity and organs examined and possibly removed for examination by an external lab if any abnormalities found. The head may be removed if for example a brain lesion was suspected. The skull would need to go through a procedure of decalcification to safely remove the contents for examination. I imagine this may be the case for looking at rabies for example or tumours within brain tissue. But it wouldn't be standard procedure. I can't see any requirement in the case of a "mauling" unless the head was crushed and it was required to provide a proof that a brain injury was the cause of death maybe?
I think in the circumstances it would be unlikely for the remains of the animal to be returned to its owner as it would remain a vital piece of evidence.....
Edited to add I suppose it would depend on which party requested the post mortem and that full consent of the owner would have to be obtained before performing the procedure. In the case of a PM with legal implications the carcass would normally remain the care of the vet performing the procedure.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating, thank you


The claim is that the animal was mauled to death while in the case of the RSPCA after having been seized as one of nine dogs from a man who also claimed nine police and the RSPCA attended with no warrant.

I too can't see the RSPCA releasing the body and the post mortem, of one was done, was done without the consent of the owner as far as we know, with the pieces returned to his vet in a plastic bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top