Rescue worker arrested for helping chained, dying dog

[Cathy1]

It's long and contains video.
http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/doogie.html

[Shaykeija]

My heart is hurting,,,,,,,,,:sad:

[Cygnet]

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this. The pictures are horrifying. On the other hand, I read a report claiming that this dog is nineteen years old. (Did anybody else see that?) He is dying. He isn't going to be "saved." Even if you believe that the proper question here is the best interests of the dog, rather than property rights (and I tend more toward that side myself, although I didn't give my one dog to the woman who fell in love with her and told her that she had an indoor pool), it is stressful and potentially upsetting to move a dog from what he has known (deficient though it is) and put him among strangers. Lots of owners are deficient. How deficient do you have to be before somebody decides that the dog needs to be "saved?"

I am completely against dogs living on chains. It is legal most places, however. And if dogs live on chains, they are going to die on chains. It isn't going to happen that an owner who has kept a dog on a chain for his entire life is going to bring him inside and let him sleep on the bed when he is old, stinky and incontinent.

Another case that I found troubling was a little dog whom those "Animal Precinct" people on tv took away from his elderly owner because the owner hadn't properly treated his cancer. The owner was very upset about losing his dog, and said he didn't want to take the dog anyplace because he was afraid the dog would be killed. The dog was bright and feisty when he was with his owner before was seized. His "saviors" put him through a horrifically invasive surgery (although the vet hinted that it wasn't going to be curative) and we saw him terrified and in pain in a cage. Maybe they bought him a few months of life, but at what cost?

[les]

Sure the dog was dying ... but he shouldn't have been left to suffer and die slowly and the people responsible for that were his oweners. So I can only see one side. If I was the lady I could not have left him there either.

IMO, the owners should have had him put to sleep - - if he was that sick and they (obviously) couldn't care less why leave him like that? It's sick. I guess I answered my own question though ... they just didn't care.

All I know is no matter the what the "law" says on paper, to charge that woman is ludicrous. Charge the fools responsible .... the owners!

[HunterXHunter]

IMHO, I think Tammy should've brought water and food to bathe and feed Doogie in that backyard until Doogie's owners return. At least then, the most she could've been charged for was trespassing.

I'm not saying I agree with what Tammy did, but I can understand why she did it. But from what I read, those police officers are b@st@rds! Anyhow, I hope charges against Tammy are dropped.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by les

Sure the dog was dying ... but he shouldn't have been left to suffer and die slowly and the people responsible for that were his oweners. So I can only see one side. If I was the lady I could not have left him there either.

IMO, the owners should have had him put to sleep - - if he was that sick and they (obviously) couldn't care less why leave him like that? It's sick. I guess I answered my own question though ... they just didn't care.

All I know is no matter the what the "law" says on paper, to charge that woman is ludicrous. Charge the fools responsible .... the owners!

My toughts exactly ! I would have taken the dog too.

[MyBirdIsEvil]

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this. The pictures are horrifying. On the other hand, I read a report claiming that this dog is nineteen years old. (Did anybody else see that?) He is dying. He isn't going to be "saved." Even if you believe that the proper question here is the best interests of the dog, rather than property rights (and I tend more toward that side myself, although I didn't give my one dog to the woman who fell in love with her and told her that she had an indoor pool), it is stressful and potentially upsetting to move a dog from what he has known

So it's in the dogs best interest to leave him chained up and dying with no medical care?
And then you mention that it's stressful and potentially upsetting to move a dog out of his previous enviroment. While that may be true in some cases, I'm fairly sure leaving a dog chained up and unable to move while he lays there and probably starves to death, is a bit more cruel than moving him to a different enviroment to get veterinary care and whatnot.

As far as property rights, yes, dogs are considered property, but dogs also have some rights, hence the reason there are animal cruelty investigators.
Just because your dog is considered your property doesn't give you the right to treat him in an inhumane manner.
I also think there's room for the law to change, and stories like this bring attention to the many flaws in the current laws.

Furthermore, laws in the U.S aren't black and white, and if the Judge feels the woman took the right action in removing the dog, he has the power to throw the case out .

[Cygnet]

It was never in the "dog's best interests" to leave this dog (or any dog) chained, but I don't think it is the law many places (certainly not here) that owners are not allowed to keep dogs on chains. I don't necessarily think that the fact that he is now old and dying suddenly makes it worse than it was for the previous ten or fifteen or nineteen years. I also don't know for a fact that he has had "no medical care." Did you read that somewhere?

One person's "dog lying there" and "probably starving to death" could possibly be another person's contented old dog lying in the sun and enjoying his last few days of life with the people and other dogs he knows and adores. Sometimes old dogs, and dying dogs, look pretty horrible. When to let go and euthanize them is an individual decision. Lots and lots of people feel that they know better than a dog's owner. I have treated dogs that other people felt should be euthanized and frankly, wouldn't have taken kindly to somebody else deciding what was in my dog's best interests.

Moreover, even with kids, the standard isn't (and probably shouldn't be) simply the best interests of the child. If I truly believe, and can prove, that I can do a better job of raising your infant than you can, that doesn't mean that I get to take him from you. There is a heavy presumption that a child is better off with his biological parents. There should be a heavy presumption (I think) that a nineteen year old dog is better off with the people who kept him alive and cared for him for nineteen years than he is with strangers.

If this dog truly has gotten "no medical care," then I think that the presumption is overcome that he belongs with his owners. If they weren't offering him food and water (as opposed to his being sick and unable to eat or unable to keep weight on), then I think the presumption is overcome. I am happy to lobby for and support laws that say that merely because he is on a chain, the presumption is overcome.

I do agree with you that laws can change and sometimes stuff like this is necessary to get people to look at laws like dogs on chains.

[twodogsandacat]

Police often get to decide when and if to lay charges (as in Caledonia Ont) so even though the law was broken I personally hope that this case is thrown out. I wonder if they asked the owner if he would still lay charges if he were to be charged once the dog was returned.

Still the laws have to change to address the real issues instead of creating vigilantes out of animal lovers.

BTW, author Jon Katz recieved a stolen (rescued) dog and I never heard that he was charged.
http://www.slate.com/id/2113564/

[MyBirdIsEvil]

I don't think it is the law many places (certainly not here) that owners are not allowed to keep dogs on chains.

Please reread my post, that was never said.
In many places it's considered cruelty to leave your dog in a state where it can't feed itself, such as leaving your dog chained in your backyard and unable to move because of medical problems.

http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/penn.htm

OR NEGLECTS ANY ANIMAL AS TO WHICH HE HAS A DUTY OF CARE, WHETHER BELONGING TO HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE, OR ABANDONS ANY ANIMAL, OR DEPRIVES ANY ANIMAL OF NECESSARY SUSTENANCE, DRINK, SHELTER OR VETERINARY CARE, OR ACCESS TO CLEAN AND SANITARY SHELTER WHICH WILL PROTECT THE ANIMAL AGAINST INCLEMENT WEATHER AND PRESERVE THE ANIMAL'S BODY HEAT AND KEEP IT DRY.

You may read that how you want, but that's Pennsylvania law.

I never said this is a criminal offense, but it is a summary offense, which still makes it against the law.

One person's "dog lying there" and "probably starving to death" could possibly be another person's contented old dog lying in the sun and enjoying his last few days of life with the people and other dogs he knows and adores.

Are you kidding me? Did you even watch the video or read the article? The dog could NOT get up, he was obviously immobilized because of some medical reason.

Moreover, even with kids, the standard isn't (and probably shouldn't be) simply the best interests of the child. If I truly believe, and can prove, that I can do a better job of raising your infant than you can, that doesn't mean that I get to take him from you. There is a heavy presumption that a child is better off with his biological parents. There should be a heavy presumption (I think) that a nineteen year old dog is better off with the people who kept him alive and cared for him for nineteen years than he is with strangers.

I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with animal cruelty, but if a child is being neglected it's within the states rights to remove the child, put the parents on trial and decide who's custody the child should be in if neglect is indeed found. If the child is old enough, the judge will often listen to the childs opinion to make a more appropriate decision on the case.

As far as the rest of your post, please read up on Pennsylvania law, which is where this happened.

Originally Posted by twodogsandacat

Still the laws have to change to address the real issues instead of creating vigilantes out of animal lovers.

Exactly, and cases like this bring into public view what kinds of problems we have with our laws.

[Cygnet]

There are wonderful dog owners who own dogs who can't get up on their own. I know people who have or had paralyzed dogs who are/were totally unable to walk. If there is nothing that can be done about this, there is nothing that can be done about it. Is it cruelty per se not to euthanize a dog who can't move on his own? I don't presume to say that other people shouldn't keep such dogs alive if they make that choice for their own dog.

Also (as I tried to make clear) , I absolutely agree that ifthis dog was being deprived of necessary food (as opposed to being skin and bones simply because he was old and dying) or veterinary care that will be helpful to him (as opposed to merely having his caretakers being told that yes, he is dying and there is nothing that can be done), then the owners are criminally culpable. I am not sure that we know that either of those things was the case.

By the way, I didn't watch the video because I had some problems getting it to play. Maybe it shows stuff that would make me feel that criminal animal abuse is proven here. And I also agree that it should be cruelty per se to keep a dog on a chain. But that cruelty was going on for all of this dog's nineteen years, probably.

As to the point about Jon Katz getting a rescued, (stolen) dog, I read that a while ago and was a bit amazed at how upfront he was about that. I actually think that keeping a young border collie tied up 24/7 is WAY crueler than keeping an old, dying, immobile dog on a chain, but both are legal.

[MyBirdIsEvil]

By the way, I didn't watch the video because I had some problems getting it to play. Maybe it shows stuff that would make me feel that criminal animal abuse is proven here. And I also agree that it should be cruelty per se to keep a dog on a chain. But that cruelty was going on for all of this dog's nineteen years, probably.

The original video shows the dog lying there unable to move, in the mud.
Also, if you read the whole page, apparently a vet has already ruled the dogs condition a case of neglect, as he was underfed, had sores, untreated back problems, etc..

The second video shows the dog up and walking after having some vet care and being fed and watered.

I actually think that keeping a young border collie tied up 24/7 is WAY crueler than keeping an old, dying, immobile dog on a chain, but both are legal.

Actually the latter is not legal as it would violate this part of the law:

OR DEPRIVES ANY ANIMAL OF NECESSARY SUSTENANCE, DRINK, SHELTER OR VETERINARY CARE, OR ACCESS TO CLEAN AND SANITARY SHELTER WHICH WILL PROTECT THE ANIMAL AGAINST INCLEMENT WEATHER AND PRESERVE THE ANIMAL'S BODY HEAT AND KEEP IT DRY.

A dog that is unable to get up or move, and is left lying in the mud, has no access to clean and sanitary shelter.

The former (in regards to the border collie), would also be illegal under pennsylvania law if the dog didn't have access to shelter that would protect the dogs health, but I don't know which particular case you're speaking of.

Is it cruelty per se not to euthanize a dog who can't move on his own?

By law? It's cruelty if because of this, the dog can't eat or drink and is starving to death.
If the dog is given veterinary care, proper shelter and can still eat and drink, I wouldn't choose to keep the dog alive (unless it was just partial paralysis), but no, it's not against the law.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Cygnet

I actually think that keeping a young border collie tied up 24/7 is WAY crueler than keeping an old, dying, immobile dog on a chain, but both are legal.

OMG,I'm trying to stay polite here,so it's not so bad for an old dog right? I can't believe you posted that! I think you post here just to get us mad.

[Golden Girls]

[QUOTE=Cygnet]

There are wonderful dog owners who own dogs who can't get up on their own. I know people who have or had paralyzed dogs who are/were totally unable to walk. If there is nothing that can be done about this, there is nothing that can be done about it. Is it cruelty per se not to euthanize a dog who can't move on his own?

It's horribly cruel and you can love them enough to let them go humanly. When an animal's quality of life is less than - it's the only thing one can do IMO

I actually think that keeping a young border collie tied up 24/7 is WAY crueler than keeping an old, dying, immobile dog on a chain, but both are legal

Really, crueler than what, in your opinion?

[Puppyluv]

That is one of the saddest things I have ever seen :sad:
I'm against tieing dogs up as it is, but this is different. This is not some dog tied up in a back yeard, who gets food, water, love and vet care. This dog seems to get none of the above. That is pure animal cruelty. If I were there, I would have taken that dog in a second.
How can you quantitate cruelty like that? It's cruel to tie up a young border collie, and it's cruel to tie up a dog that can't get up off it's side. That's like saying (to an extreme) Slowly killing a person is more cruel than quickly killing a person, therefore, the quick kill is ok. No! It's not! and tying up this dog and leaving it like that is attrocious behaviour.