Just reading this shocking news article ( please be aware the images are very shocking :-( )

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/home/pet-owner-guilty-of-causing-unnecessary-suffering-to-dogs-1.803436?referrerPath=home

It has brought to mind a question on how responsible do you have to be to own a dog.

Reading between the lines  the woman seems to have some sort of learning difficulties and maybe even some sort of mental health issues.

Now I for one have seen cases that have come through rescue where neglect of dogs has fallen solely on the fact that the owners have suffered from both or either of the above and didn't realise they were neglecting the dogs.

Now I can see that having a dog has many benefits for people but when a person is not able to see that they are harming an animal how should we look at whether they should be able to own an animal ?

The problem is if a person is under social services care or some sort of mental health support the responsibility that these health care professionals have is to the human and not to the animal. I am not saying they would ignore the fact that an animal was being neglected but I should imagine the work loads they have would be difficult enough to cope with never mind taking that on board.

Now I know that the RSPCA have some responsibilty to investigate things if they are informed but how much time again can they have to keep a close eye on monitoring the situation ?

Doesn't tackle the issue about people who just abuse or neglect animals just because they are either plain evil or haven't a sense of responsibilty though.

Anyway food for thought and just wondered what peoples opinions on this were :-)

Lucy

Ooooh what a question for a Friday morning... going out now to a seminar, but look forward to reading the replies when I return ;)

It has brought to mind a question on how responsible do you have to be to own a dog.
It's always been a worry to me.  I feel the same about how responsible do you have to be to produce children too....... :(

I think we only have to look back as far as Otis's thread to realise how serious this problem is on a daily basis. She handled the situation brilliantly, as as you start the ball rolling on these situations you know you are going to end up with being responsible for the animals in neglect.

Social services have so much human welfare to sort out, that animals probably do take a back seat and if there are no relatives or close friends as often there aren't, this kind of thing continues.

It has brought to mind a question on how responsible do you have to be to own a dog.

As we know, it is only after prosecutions that people are not allowed animals. It would be nice if social services had a special division connected with the RSPCA or something similar to call and leave details with, for home and care checks I think it is probably something much needed without going through normal channels.

The trouble is there are plenty of people with special needs who care for and adore their animals so we can't ever have anything in black and white with regards to who can and can not have an animal, it's always going to have to be after the fact.

I agree we need something, I do think a special division connected to social services for this problem with people staffing it with an understanding of special needs it would be a good start, but that is more money for more staff, but more jobs :-) do you think the government would be interested?

> I feel the same about how responsible do you have to be to produce children too

Definitely :( But where do we stop putting limits on what an individual can do ?? The top of a slippery slope :(

Daisy

> but that is more money for more staff, but more jobs  do you think the government would be interested? 

No. There is a limit to what can and must be done centrally.

Daisy

Why did you draw conclusions that this person has a learning disability and/or mental health difficulties? I can see she is attending numeracy/literacy classes but that doesn't equate to having a learning disabilty. A large percentage of our population cannot read or write down to many factors.

I agree that people need responsibility to own an animal. However, looking at a "group" rather than individuals is hugely stereotypical and segregational.

Just my opinion :)

I drew the conclusion that she didn't know she was doing any harm and looking at the dogs I have concluded that there must be some problems with her ability to see that she was being cruel to the dogs. I would expect my seven year old to be able to make this conclusion by looking at these pictures. If you cannot make a reasonable judgement based on this then you must have some sort of impairment.

Yes and do agree with your point that there are many people who cannot read and write for many reasons besides learning difficulties but that is not what I was discussing.

Perhaps I misunderstood :) I read your post to suggest that people with a learning disability or mental health difficulty abilities to own a dog should be questioned based on that particular case.

I didn't glean from the article that she had any form of disability. I read that she was an individual who had no idea of responsible pet ownership or that they chose to ignore that responsibility.

I question many people's responsibility and, my point, was that this should be done on an individual basis and no marginal groups should be targeted for questioning.

I think social services does work with the RSPCA, I read about it in a magerzine. If the RSPCA are called to a house, sometimes there will be a child there who is also being neglected. Sometimes people with report animal neglect but dont want to be involved if its a child.
So SS find out about nelected children in this way and visa versa.

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/new-beginning-for-dogs-who-survived-cruel-owner-1.808979?referrerPath=home
Just thought I would post an update to show at least the dogs left behind have got a caring new home