jakeyjangels Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Just wondering if anyone else can relate to my story. Long story cut short A neighbour's SBT X had a litter of 7 puppies 4 weeks ago. I was asked by the owners to " come & have a look" & "do you want a puppy? " (1 puppy died & another got lost in the back yard) I was appalled at the condition of mother of the pups- spine & ribs showing & looking distressed. So for a little over 3 weeks, I went over & fed her 3 times a day so as to keep up her milk for her babies At the 3 week mark she lost her milk so with the help of another neighbour we fed the remaining 5 puppies as well as the mum. The owners surrended the mum & 4 puppies to the RSPCA & kept a 3 week 3 day old puppy. I had grave concerns for the puppies welfare so rang the RSPCA to express my thoughts that it was cruel to on purpose separate a 3 week old puppy from it's mother (& litter mates) I was told that past neglect history by the owners isn't relevant now & that I should check on the puppy & then report back to them if it was't being cared for. I thought that the P in RSPCA represented Prevention I don't know if the poor little puppy made it but hopefully not as doggy heaven would be a much better place than his alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missymoo Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 thats crap...seriously that is a joke.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I've had similar experiences... I call the AWL (Animal Welfare League) now - they have better response times. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlemum Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Anyone who lives in Victoria knows the ARSEPCA is not interested in animal welfare - only photo-opportunities for Hugely Wurthless and the rest of their oxygen thieves - it really pi$$es me off that I used to contribute to them Edited June 12, 2011 by poodlemum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 That is disgusting in every way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxiewolf Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Anyone who lives in Victoria knows the ARSEPCA is not interested in animal welfare - only photo-opportunities for Hugely Wurthless and the rest of their oxygen thieves - it really pi$$es me off that I used to contribute to them Here here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolz Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 sounds like you guys have similar problems to what we have over here.. i made a complaint about a neighbours animals a good month or so ago and still havent seen any sign that they have been to check up.. in fact i should chase them up on that one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarope Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Anyone who lives in Victoria knows the ARSEPCA is not interested in animal welfare - only photo-opportunities for Hugely Wurthless and the rest of their oxygen thieves - it really pi$$es me off that I used to contribute to them So true, the R$PCA is only interested in Money not the welfare of animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 So, you didn't call the RSPCA when the mother and puppies were underweight and then the owners surrendered them voluntarily to the RSPCA after you had been feeding them? How is the RSPCA to know that they were being neglected? Because you said they were? AFAIK there's no law against keeping a 3 week old puppy. If the owners were never under investigation from the RSPCA, is it any of their business if the owners are keeping one puppy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeyjangels Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 Thanks for your replies everyone. I am just frustrated. This is the 2nd of their dogs I have helped care for. Their last dog was kept in a permanent enclosure with very little sunlight & NO human company because the owners got sick of collecting her back from the pound. My guess is she was escaping to look for food The latest situation with the puppies was just plain cruelity IMO. The wife said it was the husbands responsibilty to look after mum & babies as "It's not my dog" AND "I hate dogs" AND "Why don't you take them all home? " But yet it was her idea to keep a puppy after surrending the mum who had the most beautiful nature & the other 4 puppies. All of the above was repeated in my phone call to the RSPCA but no, stiil couldn't be acted on until i could prove current neglect. This is the frst & last time I will ever contact them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeyjangels Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 So, you didn't call the RSPCA when the mother and puppies were underweight and then the owners surrendered them voluntarily to the RSPCA after you had been feeding them? How is the RSPCA to know that they were being neglected? Because you said they were? AFAIK there's no law against keeping a 3 week old puppy. If the owners were never under investigation from the RSPCA, is it any of their business if the owners are keeping one puppy? No I didn't call the RSPCA in the beginning as I was happy to feed them knowing that this was going to be the outcome, although I believe another neighbour did ring & was told that in order to surrender the litter the mother had to be surrended as well. My point is this: I believe they did the right thing surrending as by their own admission they can't & don't want to care for a dog at all, but WHY keep & separate a 3 week old puppy from it's mother COMPLETELY UNNECESSARILY. This poor little puppy would be fretting terribly. I believe they don't have the skills or dedication to raise this puppy & when the novelity wears off, if it survived, it is in for the same neglectful life of it's predecessors. How was the the RSPCA to know they were being neglected ?? Because I told them so. And there are other neighbours who would confirm this. It should be RSPCA business that a 3 week old puppy was retained by a humanbeing "Who hates dogs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes, I am sure this is a very poor outcome for the remaining pup. However, MY point is that if you say the puppies were neglected, yet they don't appear to be because you were feeding them and mum, then that makes a case for seizing the remaining puppy pretty weak. An owner saying they hate dogs is not grounds for seizing their puppy, and nor is a neighbour saying the puppy was previously neglected if the puppy does not currently appear to be neglected. I know it sucks, but we'd be pretty upset if they could take an animal without concrete evidence that the animal is neglected or suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes, I am sure this is a very poor outcome for the remaining pup. However, MY point is that if you say the puppies were neglected, yet they don't appear to be because you were feeding them and mum, then that makes a case for seizing the remaining puppy pretty weak. An owner saying they hate dogs is not grounds for seizing their puppy, and nor is a neighbour saying the puppy was previously neglected if the puppy does not currently appear to be neglected. I know it sucks, but we'd be pretty upset if they could take an animal without concrete evidence that the animal is neglected or suffering. Agree. Word of mouth isn't grounds for acting unfortunately - if it was, it would be misused by people seeking to act on personal vendettas, etc. That's not to say that this outcome is an acceptable one at all, but in the future I think it's important to create a paper trail and log of interactions with them, bearing in mind that they are probably not going to (be able to) act on the first enquiry. I don't think that you could say that RSPCA or anyone working for them is or was acting maliciously, or purposefully avoiding acting for the welfare of the animal. It's like the child protection system in the public service - unable to act on every case that it comes across in adequate time. That's not to say that it's an acceptable situation, but it's the situation that we're dealing with. In light of that, we have to act accordingly and make multiple reports early and often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackiemad Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 the reality is that keeping a young pup is not breaking the law. even if it were a business or breeder subject to a CoP or CoE then it is STILL not breaking any laws, undesirable but not unlawful. it is not ideal, hence if you can give them proof of neglect of the pup then they'd be happy to sieze it - but do you really want them to sieze someone's animal without proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budgiew Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) If any more neglect occurs at this place,Take pictures.That's evidence. Edited June 13, 2011 by budgiew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeyjangels Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Update : Have just very briefly seen the puppy that was kept at 3 weeks old. Looked healthy enough but very timid. When I asked how he was doing, the answer was He's a sook & he has been to the doggy park but didn't like it Decided to keep my thoughts to myself. One tough little puppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevorne Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Further proof that people are morons, and another reason I stopped breeding. Of course the pup is at fault for being a sook, nothing to do with the people that own it. I could never work at a vet surgery, would want to slap people for stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You do have to sometimes sit on your hands and bite your tongue VERY hard. Poor little mite. Hope he ends up having a good life and away from these morons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeyjangels Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Further proof that people are morons, and another reason I stopped breeding. Of course the pup is at fault for being a sook, nothing to do with the people that own it. I could never work at a vet surgery, would want to slap people for stupidity. Yes chevorne morons ......I mean what were they thinking taking a 5 or 6 week old puppy to a dog park ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindainfa Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 How are people so bloody cruel? Dumping the beautiful mother, I feel really sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now