Poor Roxy

[dancinbcs]

I am certainly no fan of the RSPCA and this is a call that they should make more often. I'm not for the attempted rehab of such dogs and putting them through the pain of treatment and the suffering that goes along with it.

Of course some of the dogs come out the other end and are eventually rehomed, but what price have the paid along the way, in the name of "rehab"?

I agree. The RSPCA spends far too much money on animals that really should be pts and puts them through a great deal of suffering to prove a point and I'm sure for the publicity. Better to pts the damaged ones and spend the money saved on trying to find more homes for the healthy ones.

There are dozens of perfectly healthy cross staffies being put down in pounds and shelters at the moment because no one wants them. Putting a very ill one through expensive and traumatic treatment just to prove they could save her, would be pointless.

[persephone]

I am certainly no fan of the RSPCA and this is a call that they should make more often. I'm not for the attempted rehab of such dogs and putting them through the pain of treatment and the suffering that goes along with it.

Of course some of the dogs come out the other end and are eventually rehomed, but what price have the paid along the way, in the name of "rehab"?

There are dozens of perfectly healthy cross staffies being put down in pounds and shelters at the moment because no one wants them. Putting a very ill one through expensive and traumatic treatment just to prove they could save her, would be pointless.

agreed.

My heart goes out to those who work with these dogs- you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't

Edited December 5, 2010 by persephone

[KKDD]

I suspect the owner got more lenient treatment by claiming he couldnt afford vet care, and thats why the dog was in such appalling condition. Its a glaring lie though. You dont need to go to a vet to get food for a dog, nor to treat a dog for fleas. Its not clear what the other 'skin condition' was or whether it could only be treated by a vet, but just feeding the dog and dealing with the fleas would have improved the dog's quality of life significantly.

[pandypam]

Sorry but bloody hell, so Roxy had a skin condition!!, the RSPCA has $50 to $60 MILLION in thir coffers but couldnt treat the dog???,

You can blame the owner and should do, but instead of wasteing money on taking some drop kick to court, why not help with assisting get the dog well.

Many rescue groups would have had several dogs with skin probs, usually not a big deal these days.

[Nekhbet]

Seen dogs a lot thinner then that, she still has muscle left on her. Looks like a few good feeds, a malaseb wash and a packet of frontline would have done her

By the way the official meaning of emaciated should be:

core 1: Emaciated. No obvious body fat, the ribs and backbones are easily seen form a distance. There is noticable muscle loss. The waist has an accentuated hourglass shape and the abdomen is severely tucked

And that is on the body score index all vets are taught. If you're going to say severely emaciated then this dog should literally be a walking skeleton. I've received a starved dog before, he had barely muscle left on his carcass and he still survived surgery and bounced back fine.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Nekhbet

[stormie]

Skin is an organ - left inflamed and infected for a long period of time can affect the rest of the dog, just like any other diseased organ can.

'Skin condition' could be something severe, like chronic allergies which can be very difficult to treat and can involve medications that can have negative side effects.

Sure, the RSPCA could afford the treatment to make the dog comfortable, but what about the people that adopt her? My dog's allergy medication (to keep his cortisone doses as low as possible) cost me $550 every 2-3months. Sometimes it's not as simple as some flea treatment and a medicated wash.

I must say, I do find it funny that people can diagnose and suggest such a simple treatment to 'fix' a dog, without knowing anything about it, its temp or its health.

Also, we do not know when this picture was taken. Possibly this was after she'd been in care for some time, pending the court case and had gained some weight?

Edited December 5, 2010 by stormie

[pandypam]

Agree,

Have seen much worse, and while we dont know the full story her temp wasnt mentioned.

Seen dogs a lot thinner then that, she still has muscle left on her. Looks like a few good feeds, a malaseb wash and a packet of frontline would have done her

By the way the official meaning of emaciated should be:

core 1: Emaciated. No obvious body fat, the ribs and backbones are easily seen form a distance. There is noticable muscle loss. The waist has an accentuated hourglass shape and the abdomen is severely tucked

And that is on the body score index all vets are taught. If you're going to say severely emaciated then this dog should literally be a walking skeleton. I've received a starved dog before, he had barely muscle left on his carcass and he still survived surgery and bounced back fine.

[raz]

but instead of wasteing money on taking some drop kick to court, why not help with assisting get the dog well.

Sooo instead of prosecuting someone who neglects a dog and withholds vet treatment they should just turn a blind eye? How else were they going to get an order to have him prevented from owning another dog for several years - just ask him nicely not to get another one? They were awarded costs anyway.

And you dont even know why the dog was deemed unsuitable to rehome, as already pointed out.

[k9angel]

R.I.P. Roxy

No animal deserves that - your owner should be shot, not given a measly $2000 fine. :D

[Nekhbet]

see severe discomfort still isnt a PTS for me. My own dog has been in severe discomfort for months and I paid the vet bills and he pulled through.

The dog was not in with the RSPCA for that long considering their awarded costs only came up to over $1k. I still smell a rat.

ETA the man HAD been to a vet but couldnt afford the treatment. OK. He also probably knew if he handed over his dog to the RSPCA for whatever reason it is she would be dead. And hence she is anyway.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Nekhbet

[poodlefan]

I'm not a vet and I'm not telepathic.

I have no idea of the health issues Roxy faced, nor of the decision making process that led to her euthanasia.

The only person I'm prepared to condemn based on the available facts is her owner.

RIP Roxy. You deserved better.

[stormie]

see severe discomfort still isnt a PTS for me. My own dog has been in severe discomfort for months and I paid the vet bills and he pulled through.

The dog was not in with the RSPCA for that long considering their awarded costs only came up to over $1k. I still smell a rat.

ETA the man HAD been to a vet but couldnt afford the treatment. OK. He also probably knew if he handed over his dog to the RSPCA for whatever reason it is she would be dead. And hence she is anyway.

But the difference is, your dog had a condition which enabled him to pull through. A dog with severe allergies doesn't get that option and actually only gets worse.

I agree with Poodlefan - it's the owner we should be blaming here.

[Nekhbet]

But the difference is, your dog had a condition which enabled him to pull through. A dog with severe allergies doesn't get that option and actually only gets worse

actually parvo, HD, ED, food and environmental allergies, colapsed hock, etc He travelled with an emergency pack of phenergen he was that allergic to eating some foods one vet said he was on the verge of anaphylaxis.

guess cos I'm just a sucker with an open wallet.

[Greytmate]

You can't compare a dog that you choose to keep yourself, with a dog that is offered for sale as a house pet.

If the skin problem was really chronic, there is no 'fix', just years of pain and inflammation and possibly repeated cycles of bacterial or fungal infection. You can apply treatment to ease symptoms, if you have the time and money. You may not be able to solve the neurological problems caused by extended periods of pain and itchyness.

You cannot ethically offer a dog like that for adoption as a pet.

No sane, well-informed person would choose to own a dog with a really chronic skin problem requiring a lifetime of special care. Most people want a good dog that is happy and healthy.

We don't know why this dog was deemed unfit for rehoming, but I am glad that the RSPCA have a criteria that stops people adopting dogs for any reason other than wanting to own a good pet.

I would have liked to see a lot harsher penalty for the owner.

[Aussienot]

Sadly, a $2,000 fine is about as harsh as it ever gets in animal cruelty cases. In theory, he could have received up to 6 months in jail, but that is rarely applied. The fact that he was fined a significant amount means the judge threw the book at him.

In many cases, the owner only has to pay cost of care and agree not to own another animal for some period of time. Most cruelty cases are a Pyhrric victory.

Got to hope that karma boomerangs his way soon.

[Kirty]

The owner is the only one at fault here. The photo is terrible - it hardly shows the true condition of the dog - and I really don't think anyone can know exactly what was wrong and what other issues it had.

And whoever said the RSPCA probably didn't feed her - come on. The RSPCA is not some monster, it is an organisation made up of hundreds (thousands?) of employees and volunteers. Every single employee I've ever met has been a true animal lover. The animals are cared for in the best way possible while at the shelter. Don't be so ridiculous to claim that nobody would feed or care for this dog while it was at the shelter.

[raz]

And whoever said the RSPCA probably didn't feed her - come on. The RSPCA is not some monster, it is an organisation made up of hundreds (thousands?) of employees and volunteers. Every single employee I've ever met has been a true animal lover. The animals are cared for in the best way possible while at the shelter. Don't be so ridiculous to claim that nobody would feed or care for this dog while it was at the shelter.

Huh? Nobody said the RSPCA didnt feed her. Are you referring to Stormie's comment where she said the photo could have been taken after the dog had been in RSPCA care pending the court case and GAINED weight?

[Kirty]

From neglectful home, to vet clinic, to death, that does not sit well with me at all. I'll wager she never even got a meal or flea bath whilst she was being quickly evaluated and quickly condemned

No, I was referring to this comment.

[raz]

ahh rightyo. Sorry, I missed that one.

[Aussienot]

I'll take that wager!

Note for the uniformed: A dog that is seized by Welfare Officers for being underweight is fed an appropriate amount and weighed and measured daily and photographed usually weekly. This provides evidence for prosecution. The owner can claim illness or other factors, but if feeding works to put weight on, it is proof of cruelty.

Go ahead and critisise the RSPCA, but please try to get the reasons right. Poor Roxy had a terrible owner and a short sorry life. Not the RSPCA's fault.