http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019685/Grandmother-Pauline-Spoor-convicted-animal-cruelty-wear-electronic-tag.html

Without looking at the dog and knowing what it was like it is difficult to say was she being cruel ?

We all say on here when giving advice or support that the person will know when it is the right time but is the RSPCA's interpretation the same ? And as for putting an electronic tag on the woman I thin that is a bit excessive :-(

As you say, without seeing the dog it is diff to say.  However we can only assume that rspca AND vet thought that this was indeed cruelty. v sad nonetheless.

Looking at the photo which I presume was taken when he was in the hands of the RSPCA looks so much like my two oldies I let go at just before 15 years old. But photos I know do not tell the whole story.

what an utter waste of the courts time.
surely dog pts and a caution would have been more then adequate?

what an utter waste of the courts time.
surely dog pts and a caution would have been more then adequate?

Hard to say about the verdict without knowing all that was put before the court but the punishment is an odd one for me. 
I would have thought a fine would have been more appropriate to make her, and anyone else, consider any future choices particular if the decision had anything to do with avoidance of vet fees.
A tag makes more sense when the consideration is keeping the public safe and that is hard to see being an issue in this case.  Perhaps the judge felt he had to do something to make her think on, as they say around our way, and it certainly has that.

> We all say on here when giving advice or support that the person will know when it is the right time but is the RSPCA's interpretation the same ?

I think there is a dfference between keeping a dog going under the care of a vet and not seeing a vet.
My last dog looked much worse than that lab in his final few months, but he was being seen by a vet for treatment for his problems.

I don't think there can be a right or wrong answer as to when it is the right time to have an animal PTS, however, leaving an aging/ill/weakening pet without seeing a vet is different to simply not wanting to have a dog PTS.

The fact a person 'loves' thier dog, does not give them any right to deny it medical attention becasue it is old. Even old dogs can get pain relief and treatment for problems. I hope this makes people realise it is NEVER OK to neglect the health and welfare of pets in thier care, old pets or not.

If that wasn't a 'grandmother' but a young, unemployed bloke, with a skin head and tattoos all over him, there wouldn't be as much sympathy for the owner. I don't think grannies should get treated more lenient becasue they are grannies, the facts (as have been repoted) are that an owner did not get thier pet medical attention when it needed it, so the animal suffered unneccesarily thanks to the neglect of the owner.

I do think the tag is rather pointless though!

Another article with more info:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1426723_71-year-old-woman-fitted-with-electronic-tag-for-neglecting-her-pet-labrador

According to this one, the dog wasn't being seen by a vet due to incontinence which meant buses and taxis were refusing to take him.  And the staffi had an untreated skin problem.

Doesn't excuse it - dedicated pet taxis exist, or even dog pants.

The article doesn't say whether he had had no treatment at all or just hadn't been for a while - if none at all then it is most definitely cruelty.  My old girl had had no treatment for her arthritis, full anal glands and chronic chin and ear infections and was in horrendous pain and itching from all of it - cruelty without a doubt.

But I agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, I can make no sense of her being made to wear a tag.

Think it's way OTT myself.  I've had friends who have actually asked me for support as they just couldn't go through and did not want to take their dog to PTS.  The dog had lived 18 years so would think that it had been looked after very well just that the owner found it to hard to end the dogs life.

I also don't think photo's tell the full story.  We had a Rough Collie a number of years ago.  He'd been a fit healthy dog and in two weeks he lost about half of his body weight.  In that time he'd been going to a vet.  After my parents spending money with a vet who didn't have a clue they eventually asked for a second opinion.  Within an hour of him going there a diagnosis was found and he was PTS whilst under anaesthetic.

One of my Spanish I took her to a show just before her 15th birthday and I think that all who saw her there would agree that she looked fantastic.  Within 2 months I had to have her PTS as she'd developed stomach cancer and again was a dog who lost so much weight just in a 3 week period.

Have had similar experiences myself Perro ;)   Oldies that have lived a very long life (dogs and cats of 18+) and suddenly go downhill usually over about 2/3 weeks.   It's hard enough in your 20s/30s/40s to have a beloved companion PTS, how much more difficult must it be when you're in your 70s ?

Just on the info given in the links, I think the RSPCA need to stop prosecuting easy targets such as OAPs and prosecute those who are REALLY willfully neglecting dogs.  Where are all the reports of Puppy farmers being prosecuted by the RSPCA?  The papers should be full of them.

These two people could have been dealt with in a different manner.   Another dog was returned so there couldn't have been a problem with the care of that one.  I'm sure the RSPCA would have removed it permanently if they'd had the slightest reason.

How many of us here can honestly say that we've never ever had an oldie that we knew needed PTS, but put off the inevitable because we couldn't bear it?    Oldies can and do go down very quickly despite having been hale and hearty for most of their lives, are the RSPCA going to hunt down and prosecute every owner of any oldie that needs PTS?

Something strange about thoose reports I think we are getting the bits the press want to use. The dog was only 9 according to the second report not 18. I agree cant see the point of a tag but she also got a community order as well

Nice of them to give an old lady of 71 a 9pm curfew, guess that puts a stop to her night clubbing for a bit.

I don't always trust the RSPCA's anaylsis of things and what old person who loves their dog isn't going to believe that they have neglected their dog.  Makes you wonder if she knows wtat she actually pleading guilty to.

People could have maybe helped them then prosecuted if no improvement was made.  Not everyone gets treatment for Arthritis of are treating with over the counter.

That is very true about treating Arthritis as with my two oldies I treated their old bones with supplements rather than prescribed treatments as through diet and the right excercise it managed the condition. They rarely were ever in pain and had occasional doses (once in a blue moon) of metacam.

Yes they looked old and walked around like old dogs but were well looked after and were not in pain or suffered. My vet back me up on that.

It seems a very harsh and totally unnecessary way of treating her and must be putting the fear to alot of old people as I am sure with the way the recession has hit people with rising prices people on pensions must be really struggling to cover things like vets bills:-( Not that is is right to withold treatment if an animal needs it.

And as for putting an electronic tag on the woman I think that is a bit excessive

It certainly is.............. which leads me to believe that it is not the reasoning behind it, you know, don't let a little old lady dressed nicely and looking serene fool you :-D For all we know she was a complete nightmare she may have acted threateningly and be as foul mouthed as a any yob would be, Just because someone is old doesn't necessarily mean they are nice, I dare say there are other reasons why the court also deemed her to be tagged.

I can't imagine if a little old lady broke down in tears at a vets or to the RSPCA with the reasons given either would have prosecuted her far more to this story........... it's difficult with vet bills for many old people but there are the blue cross, rspca, pdsa etc to help.

Personally I think we are only hearing one side, far more to this, common sense surely dictates that no-one would be tagged for these reasons, she must have been extremely nasty to have needed one of those.

not replying to anyone in particular but it does worry me a bit this case.
I have an elderly cat with a large cyst on his face- its very big-. he is over 15 and had a bad reaction to anasthetic when given in past. I took him to vet to discuss whether removeable a few months back and they said could but he'd end up with one ear pulled right forward, eye possibly not shutting and they'd want to take a load of his teeth out at same time. they said he otherwise looked in good health and they said he clearly was in no pain or discomfort from either cyst or teeth so as it seemed to me it was more of a cosmetic procedure then a welfare procedure and he'd likely end up worse we did not go ahead.  However it looks dreadful- not a nice sight, not ulcerated or anything but looks unpleasent.   I think he is on borrowed time at his age- he is happily playing with toys, scoffing loads of fod, a good weight, bright eyed and and happy but at his age thats not going to last and when he starts to look sad I will take him to be pts straight off.  what worries me is it looks nasty- am I in danger of rspca for having a cat that looks nasty? how do you protect yourself from that?  If I had the money I'd take him to vet once a month to keep a more comprehsive record of being checked but my situation has changed for worse over last 15 years and I really can't afford unnecessary vet bills- and not entitled to helpt there so have to be careful and save the money for the necessary ones.  what do you think? reading stories like this makes me worried. I don't want to have him pts before his time but on other hand I have a dog too and it would destroy me if ended up in that womens position. things like this make me feel playing with fire keeping him these last few months :(

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/261794/Tagged-gran-too-upset-to-have-her-dog-put-down

This article has more information and the last paragraphs show abit more maybe of how she felt about him.

There is also this article which mentions about her son as well......

http://menmedia.co.uk/tamesideadvertiser/news/s/1426723_71-year-old-woman-fitted-with-electronic-tag-for-neglecting-her-pet-labrador

Weimed this is exactly the situation I was worrried about as well what peoples reactions would be to this and how it would bring people to question if they are doing things right.

When my girls were in their last few months they didn't run around like spring chickens and walked very slowly and did have limps, struggled to get up at times but they were in the main happy, drank and ate very well, toileted (did have accidents but that is part of getting old). To me thye were fine but to other people did they ?

We all know being with an animal you know them , you know when things are wrong but to somebody else that maybe different.

Weimed if it makes you feel any better (and makes me feel awful again :-( ) Years ago I called the RSPCA because a cat in our neighbourhood was so thin and always crying, looked a terrible state, you could see it's bones and we were all saying how cruel the owners were, not feeding it properly etc.

The RSPCA came and called me back after visiting turned out the cat had liver problems and was elderly but under a vet having treatment so it was never taken any further and I felt really horrible for calling them, the neighbours actually came out and spoke to us all very nicely telling us about their cat, which was very good of them, we should have knocked on the door and asked before calling the RSPCA, but I guess you don't do you?...

So even if your whole neighbourhood report your cat as long as the RSPCA can see the cat is under vet referral they are fine and won't bother you again, it's when an animal is not under a vet that you have a problem, as with the above situation.

So don't worry at all. :-)

Ditto Carrington there is an old Golden Retriever that I see most days she has a huge growth on her side and she is walked daily, slowly yet when I say hello she has bright eyes and a waggy tail. I dont know I feel so sad for the dog but her owners - a youngish couple are so caring, she does not appear in pain.
When is it too late - thank goodness not up to me to decide. The retriver comes to all neighbourhood gatherings is often out (on a lead) and they just warn kiddies that she is poorly and not to fuss her. But I think the time is coming, but she is sprightly... I think when they have dull eyes and no sign of being glad to be alive..

> And as for putting an electronic tag on the woman I think that is a bit excessive
>
> It certainly is..............

I don't really think it is excessive.  It hardly seems like punishment at all to me in this instance.  Very different to a teenager for instance who may find being couped up very arduous.  As someone said she is not likely to miss her late night outs and, although she is quoted as talking about embarassment, she is photographed wearing trousers which rather emphasises the point that no one need know.  Anyway, if she is so embarassed why talk so freely to the press and ensure even more people know of her punishment?
I think, like Carrington, I have some suspicions that there may possibly be rather more to this than the angle the press are choosing to give us.

Stooge,

Your comments show no appreciation for the way many of the older generation feel.

They often are appalled at even the thought of doing something wrong or being thought to have done something wrong.  This is the generation that would have a panic attack at not paying their utility bill on the day it arrives.  

>As someone said she is not likely to miss her late night outs

This is an extremely callous attitude.  I mostly stay in at night and rarely go on a night out, but I would be very upset if I was under a curfew.   There's a big difference between choosing to stay in and being forced to stay in.

I'm sure if the RSPCA could have prosecuted this woman and her son for more they would have - after all they have a bottomless pocket thanks to the millions of people who give because of their adverts. 

>I have some suspicions that there may possibly be rather more to this than the angle the press are choosing to give us. 

I doubt it, as it is it's hardly juicy stuff, if there had been more it would have been reported.

> Your comments show no appreciation for the way many of the older generation feel.
>

I am not quite as old as this lady but I know I don't boogie like I used to :) but perhaps you are right, and this will be the punishment intended.

> I doubt it, as it is it's hardly juicy stuff, if there had been more it would have been reported.

Possibly but it strikes me that they may have simply decided the outrage of tagging a pensioner makes the juiciest angle of it all.  Although we on this board, quite naturally, think the dog part to the most pertinent, the general public make perk up more at the abuse of pensioners.  Who knows?

> strikes me that they may have simply decided the outrage of tagging a pensioner makes the juiciest angle of it all. 

I agree. The fact an owner left her dog suffering and it needed to be PTS (her other dog was returned to her, so I doubt her lab was PTS out of punishmnet, but becasue it needed it, the poor thing :( ) seems to have been skirted aound in favour of telling the 'ordeal' of a 'granny' that has been through our justice system and actually recieved a 'punishment'.

Maybe I'm just too synical, but I too think there is more too it.

The woman says "I thought as long as his tail was still wagging and he was still wanting to come out to the field with me, I could wait a few more days." and also her defense was "she had not been to a vet because he was incontinent and no bus or taxi would take him.", but also says "'I couldn't afford a vet call-out."

OK, she says she was waiting a few more days before she had him PTS, BUT she couldn't afford to call a vet out, nor could she get the dog to a vet due to incontince - how on earth was she going to have him PTS???? I don't think she planned having him PTS atall, by her own words it simply wasn't going to happen, so he would have just wasted away.
Yep, lovely lady :(

ETA, my dog has artiritis that is only treated with supplimets (glucosamine & cod liver oil,), occasioanlly he'll have metacam if he needs it. There is no way on earth any vet would say he needs puttnig to sleep due to artiritis. The poor dog in the article must have had very painfull, cripling artiritis for a vet to want to have it PTS.

>The poor dog in the article must have had very painfull, cripling artiritis for a vet to want to have it PTS.

Not all animals respond well to the vets.   I had a dog who would 'shut down' if he had to go to the vets.  A more pathetic old individual you couldn't hope to meet.  Outside the vets he was a bouncing lively 3 year old boy!  Many people believe that if their dog seems happy, then he is and how are we to know if they are right or wrong?

I do think that there is now a culture of not allowing an animal to be elderly.  Pets get old, they slow down, they get a bit stiff and need more time when walking, but this isn't necessarily a sign of neglect or lack of care.   

>Many people believe that if their dog seems happy, then he is and how are we to know if they are right or wrong?

We can't but their vet probably can.  I think most vets will include the account the owner gives of their usual behaviour in their assessment along side the physical examination.

Agreed, but in this case it wasn't allowed.  The dog was seized and taken to the RSPCA vet :(    

Presumably the RSPCA did question her and she would also have been able to have her say in court.

I wholeheartedly agree Dill. My old dog, sadly no longer with me, was 16. He was a happy but old and frail man. He was slow...at times weak on his back legs but still loved a gentle game of tuggy and became a barking maniac at meal times! However, take him to the vet and even I cried at how he looked. He would move painfully to the vet door with his head stooped. Anyone would think "what a miserable and unhappy boy". Thankfully, my vet knows me and my dogs very well. On one occasion, where I knew he had a UTI (he had kidney failure so was prone to this), I had to take him to an emergency vet at the weekend. She virtually accused me of keeping him alive for my benefit and not for his. I was so upset. He lived 12 months after this visit. Not in suffering pain but as an old man with issues we all face in our progressing years.

Thankfully, my own vet could see the trauma visits to her surgery caused him. It's an hours drive to my vet (my choice, I don't trust vets easily and will travel to one I do trust) and we came to an agreement about antibiotic treatments etc where we could discuss over the phone without the need for him to go through the trauma of a visit. Some will argue a vet shouldn't prescribe without seeing the animal. However, my vet has the measure of my knowledge, understanding and vigilance in my dogs health. I don't think this would be an agreement she would make with people she didn't have that trust in.

So, my rambling point is...a vet can't always see the true dog.

Thanks colliecrew, nice to know someone else understands ;)

>and she would also have been able to have her say in court.

That's a pretty big assumption!   It also would depend on how well she was able to express herself.

The RSPCA have vets at their command and they have a bottomless pocket for lawyers.   How many ordinary people can match their paying power for a lawyer?

Significantly, this woman was not banned from keeping animals for any length of time and her other dog was returned to her.   If she was such a neglectful owner why would this have been allowed? 

Dill, you are entitled to your opinion as am I :)
She seems to have no difficulty in expressing herself perfectly adequately to the press.

> Significantly, this woman was not banned from keeping animals for any length of time and her other dog was returned to her.   If she was such a neglectful owner why would this have been allowed?

Significant of what?  I would not see any need to throw the book at her either.  I'm sure she will have learnt her lesson by this.

I don't know if there is more to this or not, and certainly this woman should have sought veterinary attention to alleviate the *usual* trials of old age.  What does worry me hugely is the RSPCA's hypocrisy. They should have been prosecuted for cruelty themselves over the bolt gun incident. How many times have you known of a dog in a terrible situation 24/7, guard dogs on chains dirty matted and lonely, and (when eventually they deign to respond) the RSPCA say they have advised they can't do anything because the animal has food and shelter? I've known quite a few in my lifetime. Here we have a situation where they got the police to BREAK IN to this woman's house. The RSPCA in my opinion are always far too quick to *kill*.

Their reason for putting this dog to sleep seem very odd to me. Arthritis can be alleviated and managed even when quite advanced, lameness is the outward expression of arthritis, and conjunctivitis, also very easily treated. Yet they didn't even try.  Yes he looks old and a bit sad, but no more than many older dogs, and if this photo was taken after they removed him, he will also be confused and disoriented.  I had a mostly blind, completely deaf mongrel that looked the saddest dog in the world. He never 'sat' he would only stand or lie down (due to arthritis). He was covered in lumps the size of your fist (he was adopted this way). But when that old lad was in the park he changed completely, the rest of the time he mostly slept. He was content. If the RSPCA broke in to my home would they have had him PTS - more than likely with not enough questions asked. I do not trust the RSPCA and their 'judgement' one iota. Maybe they *had* to put the dog to sleep to save face over their style of entrance to this property, justification if you like. I used to support them back in the days when I knew no better.

> Yet they didn't even try.

How do you know that?  He was put down shortly after but we don't know quite how long and what remedial treatments were attempted.
He didn't just suffer from arthritis.  The report mentioned several conditions including conjuctivitis and incontinence both of which may have proved intractable and would have caused him many problems and possible much pain. 
Assuming it was their intention all along to prosecute this woman it would have made a better case for them if they had managed to keep him alive and restore some quality of life to demonstrate neglect so I am inclined to believe that was not possible.

Yet they didn't even try :- How do you know that?  Because it states he was put down the next day. When you treat for arthritis you cannot expect to see any improvement before the two week 'loading' period with NSAIDs, and it's usually 4 weeks for the dog to begin to feel the benefit.
The report mentioned several conditions including conjuctivitis and incontinence both of which may have proved intractable and would have caused him many problems and possible much pain.  Again, conjunctivitis is usually very treatable , but it requires time.  Incontinence may respond to treatment, but is in itself hardly life threatening. Many people manage very well with incontinent dogs. I personally wouldn't put a dog down because it was incontinent. These conditions could only be proven to be intractable if time were spent in trying to treat them, and seeing what the response was.

Assuming it was their intention all along to prosecute this woman it would have made a better case for them if they had managed to keep him alive and restore some quality of life to demonstrate neglect so I am inclined to believe that was not possible.
I feel the opposite, that it is far better *publicity* for them to infer the dog was so *awful* they *had* to put him down.

I find the whole incident very weird.

It's possible that the RSPCA got the dog's medical history from its vet and know what treatment, if any, had been tried already.

JG, No I don't think so. Part of the stated issue is that the dog hadn't been seen by a vet.

IMO, (and I grant I have no faith whatsoever in the RSPCA) it would have been appropriate to offer help with veterinary treatment to see whether this old lad would have benefited.  But that would have cost them money and wouldn't have been such a good story for them. Cynical - yes I am.

Many years ago the RSPCA did used to offer help, and have centres where people with little money could go for advice and treatment, but that went by the board years ago, and they are very thin on the ground these days. Yhe latest is that they have decided that they will no longer accept dogs being handed in. I think they lost their way years ago.

> I find the whole incident very weird.

So do I.

>Dexter, who was put down the next day, was estimated to be around nine years old although Spoor claimed he was 18

That's how rough he looked even to the owner.  Let us not forget the other dog left to suffer without proper treatment either.  I doubt they felt the threat of euthanasia on that one.

Stooge, I said at the outset that I agree the woman should have sought vet treatment for the dog, and the same for her son with the other dog. If the dog was in pain and was getting no medication they are right to prosecute, as it is cruelty.

In respect of the dog, it remains that they never gave this dog any kind of chance with treatable conditions, that's my point - not defending the owner.

We don't know the dogs real age, of course not, and estimates are notoriously inaccurate. The dog I adopted looked far worse than this dog, and I thought he would make 6 months if I was lucky. He was with me for nearly 3 years and his age was estimated to be 15 when I adopted him. A little help and TLC was all he needed to be comfortable in his twilight years.

> In respect of the dog, it remains that they never gave this dog any kind of chance with treatable conditions, that's my point

The woman her self said "I knew I was wrong for not putting him to sleep".

We don't actually know if the woman requested the dog be PTS herself, seems as if she thought it needed to be (yet did nothing about it). The article (or any of the other articles about this) has no words from the woman in protest of the dog being euthanised, only the fact she has been tagged. I suppose it's possible that the woman did not want her dog PTS and the RSPCA forced that, but I find it hard to believe the paper would omit the fact that an 'old lady' had her dog forced from her and PTS against her wishes - that would make an even 'better' story about how how the 'old woman' has been subjected to such 'draconian' treatment.