Is This Cruel?

[kris]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

anyone see this on todays news about the two men with the fat labrador?this case cost 20,000 pounds for the rspca to bring.is this a good idea for the rspca to use their funds to do this?was it cruelty?or were they just doting owners who couldnt say no to their dog? debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambrid...ire/6256349.stm

 

[J.T.]

I don't think it is intentionally "cruel" but I do think the owners need to be educated as to the feeding programme for their dog. The dog is 12 years old so isn't doing that bad but the poor sod could barely move. The irony of it is, after the RSPCA spending all that amount, the court decided in favour of the owners anyway & the dog is going back to them. I think they have to pay some costs or a fine (not too sure of the details)

Probably the only other option would be for the dog to be pts as the rehoming prospect would be pretty bleak so from the dogs point of view he's on a winner.

I would imagine that within a couple of weeks he will be back up to his original weight again

It's a catch 22 really. Either the dog goes back to be fed to death or he's pts as an unrehomeable fat old dog. Unless some lovely person came forward to offer him a nice new home.

To be honest I'm surprised he's managed this long really at that weight, his joints must be groaning. & his heart must be working overtime.

 

[nina]

Defies words really, to in the name of "love" let any living creature get in to this state

 

[Seraphina]

Some people just should not have dogs. But some people do the same to kids. Just the other day I watched a grossly over weight mother and her 4-5 years old son (also very overweight), they sat on a park bench where I parked my car. When I was getting out of my car they were eating huge servings of icecream, I could not be able to eat 1/3 of them. I went to a shop and came back to put the bags to my car only to see them munching on donuts, then i went to the chemist and when i was pulling out they were already eating something else. (w00t)

But I am glad the dog will stay with his owners, I am sure they love him in their demnted little way :wacko: . Poor dog .

 

[GreyKnight]

I am sure they love him in their demnted little way  :wacko:   . Poor dog .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Though the dog probably thinks "wow, I can't believe I get so much food!"

It is a shame, but I don't think it's a criminal offence. If it's not criminal for human children to get fat, then it's certainly not criminal to allow an animal to get fat. We make pigs fat on purpose!

I agree the owners need educating, but the dog is still alive at 12 years old, so it's had a full life and doesn't know any different. I think it's better that it's over fed at 12 years than starved to death at 12 months.

 

[Tesa]

anyone see this on todays news about the two men with the fat labrador?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It even made our Sunday paper here in Melbourne. Poor dog

 

[Janimal]

Yep - I dont think its intentional cruelty either - and some people do need educating - its easy feeding them treats - but its knowing when to stop.

My friend has a chocolate lab and they are very prone to putting on the weight if not excercised regularly and the correct diet.

Hope the dog looks better after its diet.

 

[wilfred]

I think it's misguided cruelty if that is the right phrase. I certainly don't think the dog's owners intended it any harm, I feel they perhaps come from a generation or have the mindset, that equates giving lots of food with showing lots of love.

For instance as children, my 2 sisters and I would always travel 300 miles to spend a fortnight (*edited to add: every year in the school summer holidays) with our Grandma in the countryside in Devon. We were fed a healthy balanced diet at home and were never starved, we had all we wanted to eat at home, but my Gran would always "feed us up" as though she was fattening pigs for bacon!

After 2 weeks, we had no clothes that fit us! And we were active enough, always playing with the children in my Gran's village, but she just had that mindset where to show your love, you had to keep giving food.

Years and years ago I had a little rescue dog and I was guilty of feeding him too much, though certainly not to the extent the dog we are discussing was overfed, and when I looked at my dog's "holiday photos" and a friend pointed out his weight, I was horrified at what I'd done!! And he went on a regime to get back to a comfortable weight etc.

I just hope the 2 men (brothers?) are able to bear in mind what they need to do to keep their dog a healthy size and not have his internal organs working overtime (kidney, heart, lungs etc) to keep up with his huge bulk.

 

[maggymills]

its not cruelty, but its ignorance on their part.

 

[Evie]

I think yes, in this case, it was cruelty. If you have seen the images on the tv you will have seen how the dog could barely walk with all that weight.

They had been told on a number of occasions by their vet that the dog needed to loose weight. Then the RSPCA did a number of visits to advise them on him needing to shed the pounds. They continues to ignore the advice and continued to stuff him full. So he ws finally taken by the RSPCA.

After court they are still denying overfeeding, saying they feed him a normal diet and that his exercise is restricted due to arthritis. Sorry, but no dog gets that overweight due to that. Any decent owner would see the condition their animal is getting into and cut back the feed for a start. (I heard somewhere that they were feeding him CAKES, but can't confirm that.)

They showed no remorse for the condition that poor lad got in. I believe, but not 100% sure, that they have him back on condition he does not regain any weight. It will be interesting to see in a months time how he's doing.

I can understand how some people can let their animals get a litlle overweight. But their comes a point were you must realise that this isn't good for the animal and cut back. That certain foods aren't good for them. That overfeeding is causing harm to your dogs well being. IMO, it's cruel to ignore these facts and continue on feeding like that.

 

[Evie]

The irony of it is, after the RSPCA spending all that amount, the court decided in favour of the owners anyway & the dog is going back to them. I think they have to pay some costs or a fine (not too sure of the details)

Found this into on the net:

"Magistrates imposed a conditional discharge on each brother.

They did not make an order preventing the dog being returned to the brothers.

But the order says the men must ensure that the dog does not gain large amounts of weight and that it is properly cared for."

 

[zilloot]

The irony of it is, after the RSPCA spending all that amount, the court decided in favour of the owners anyway & the dog is going back to them. I think they have to pay some costs or a fine (not too sure of the details)

Found this into on the net:

"Magistrates imposed a conditional discharge on each brother.

They did not make an order preventing the dog being returned to the brothers.

But the order says the men must ensure that the dog does not gain large amounts of weight and that it is properly cared for."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Going by this photograph I would say not only is it extremely cruel, it's practically barbaric.... a sick form of torture for this poor dog. He can hardly move!!!!

The dog has no say - he's only acting on instinct to eat at every 'opportunity' - but people are responsible for animals and this is not ignorance it's malicious. Did they honestly think this poor creature wasn't suffering????

I was absolutely astonished that they were allowed to take him home with them again. :rant:

 

[Trish]

really felt sorry for the guys,and even more sorry for the poor dog.

they obviously loved it,but such a shame that they couldnt stop feeding :wacko:

 

[kris]

i agree with a previous post about showing affection by giving food.i hadnt seen this second pic of the poor dog when he was grossly overweight.thats terrible,poor thing must have struggled to move about. i think folk who overfeed their kids and get them grossly overweight ought to be punished too as its a form of child abuse

 

[Evie]

Poor thing could only walk a few steps before having to sit and would collapse if kept standing. It had breathing difficulties as well as painful joints and an ongoing hip complaint. :rant:

The thing that really gets me is that the owners didn't seem to feel bad at all about it. They have even changed vets. No remorse was shown after the court hearing.

I just hope for Rusty's sake they treat him properly from here on out.

They were found not guilty of a second charge of failing to provide appropriate vet treatment for a chronic ear infection, which they treated themselves. But I don't know anymore details on this charge.

 

[Zephyr]

This is a difficult one as I have certainly seen many dogs (and a few cats) in a terrible state of gross obesity like this , and most of their owners were not being deliberately cruel, but often really couldn't see how bad it was, so we spent a lot of time on re-educating them as to what was reasonable to feed to a dog (for example one many gave his Old English Sheepdog half a madeira cake every afternoon and shared a box of Dairy Milk Chocoates with it every week! )

But we also had an obese Labrador in (66kgs!!!) who was owned by a very sensible and lovely owner, who also owned a very fit and lean GSD and a beautiful Great Dane. It was only the Lab who had got overweight, mainly because it begged and stole all the time :sweating: , and the children felt sorry for it when it looked at them with it's big sad eyes! :blink: They were certainly not guilty of cruelty, and they worked very hard at getting this poor dogs weight down over a period of time.

It seems that in Rusty's case the prosecution was due to them ignoring advice from vets and the RSPCA over a prolonged period of time, in which case it was a more wilful and deliberate act.

 

[noo]

'Killing with kindness' and 'love' (for me at least) are completely different. One is healthy and one is highly abusive and disabling. I think that the owners should be intensively assessed and thier difinition of 'love' scrutinised before the dog is allowed back into their hands.

Misguided/understandable or not this is totally unacceptable. I hope that they will be closely monitored for a long time after recieving the dog back into thier care and I genuinely hope it works out as the dog will then be healthy and they will have learned a great deal.

 

[Smiffy@VeronnaV]

Wasn't it cruel of the RSPCA to remove from him from his owners? Dogs don't understand the concept of being kind to them by being cruel and as far as that old lad was concerned his two 'rocks' had been removed from his life. So in my view that was more cruel that how those owners managed their dog.

What an awful waste of money on the part of the RSPCA and don't we have enough legislation in our lives without those petty overblown inspectors who answer to whom exactly? walking in and taking dogs away because they are fed too much (or in our case too little????). Can you imagine the outrage there would be on the board if someone had their dog/s removed by the RSPCA because one of the neighbours thought the dog was too thin and the owner wouldn't do anything about it???!!!!!

Am I the only one who thinks that the owners have some sort of strange 'right' to treat their dog as they see fit, bearing in mind that they are always kind to it? Don't starve it, beat it, leave it out in all weathers with no shelter, food etc. I would not let my dog become that large, but then, I'm not them am I? But I do think that they love that old dog, and for me it's worth far more that a whole shed load of do-gooders. And if he lives with them and dies a happy dog, for him wouldn't that be better than 3 or maybe 4 years of confusion and misery wondering where they are?

What about the owners of the dog, how must they have felt to have him taken away? How about some compassion for them. We can't all be the same, and what a boring old world it would be were that the case!

Besides, I don't like being told what to do, maybe they don't either! Perhaps the brothers thought the RSPCA should 'butt out' of their business. :- " :- "

 

[masta]

Wasn't it cruel of the RSPCA to remove from him from his owners?  Dogs don't understand the concept of being kind to them by being cruel and as far as that old lad was concerned his two 'rocks' had been removed from his life.  So in my view that was more cruel that how those owners managed their dog. 
What an awful waste of money on the part of the RSPCA and don't we have enough legislation in our lives without those petty overblown inspectors who answer to whom exactly? walking in and taking dogs away because they are fed too much (or in our case too little????).  Can you imagine the outrage there would be on the board if someone had their dog/s removed by the RSPCA because one of the neighbours thought the dog was too thin and the owner wouldn't do anything about it???!!!!!

Am I the only one who thinks that the owners have some sort of strange 'right' to treat their dog as they see fit, bearing in mind that they are always kind to it?  Don't starve it, beat it, leave it out in all weathers with no shelter, food etc.  I would not let my dog become that large, but then, I'm not them am I?  But I do think that they love that old dog, and for me it's worth far more that a whole shed load of do-gooders.  And if he lives with them and dies a happy dog, for him wouldn't that be better than 3 or maybe 4 years of confusion and misery wondering where they are?

What about the owners of the dog, how must they have felt to have him taken away?  How about some compassion for them.  We can't all be the same, and what a boring old world it would be were that the case!

Besides, I don't like being told what to do, maybe they don't either!  Perhaps the brothers thought the RSPCA should 'butt out' of their business.  :- "  :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

"Am I the only one who thinks that the owners have some sort of strange 'right' to treat their dog as they see fit"

no your not.

i thought the definition of cruel was to " cause intentional and deliberate suffering" i dont think for one minute the owners intended the dog to sufferer.

the RSPCA saw a marketing tool shame they dont spend as much time and money investigating drug dealers breeding and fighting pits

 

[noo]

Wasn't it cruel of the RSPCA to remove from him from his owners?  Dogs don't understand the concept of being kind to them by being cruel and as far as that old lad was concerned his two 'rocks' had been removed from his life.  So in my view that was more cruel that how those owners managed their dog. 
What an awful waste of money on the part of the RSPCA and don't we have enough legislation in our lives without those petty overblown inspectors who answer to whom exactly? walking in and taking dogs away because they are fed too much (or in our case too little????).  Can you imagine the outrage there would be on the board if someone had their dog/s removed by the RSPCA because one of the neighbours thought the dog was too thin and the owner wouldn't do anything about it???!!!!!

Am I the only one who thinks that the owners have some sort of strange 'right' to treat their dog as they see fit, bearing in mind that they are always kind to it?  Don't starve it, beat it, leave it out in all weathers with no shelter, food etc.  I would not let my dog become that large, but then, I'm not them am I?  But I do think that they love that old dog, and for me it's worth far more that a whole shed load of do-gooders.  And if he lives with them and dies a happy dog, for him wouldn't that be better than 3 or maybe 4 years of confusion and misery wondering where they are?

What about the owners of the dog, how must they have felt to have him taken away?  How about some compassion for them.  We can't all be the same, and what a boring old world it would be were that the case!

Besides, I don't like being told what to do, maybe they don't either!  Perhaps the brothers thought the RSPCA should 'butt out' of their business.   :- "  :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

"Am I the only one who thinks that the owners have some sort of strange 'right' to treat their dog as they see fit"

no your not.

i thought the definition of cruel was to " cause intentional and deliberate suffering" i dont think for one minute the owners intended the dog to sufferer.

the RSPCA saw a marketing tool shame they dont spend as much time and money investigating drug dealers breeding and fighting pits

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If the dog was just overweight id be inclined to agree - maybe some form of support should in that case be put in place to 'support' the owner care for the dog better?

I still think this is possible in this case but initally the dog imo 'had' to be removed for its own health - it could hardly move for christs sake!!! The owners have to realise thier kind of love is damaging and disabling to thier pet and change certain caring/or not behaviours. I dont think its a waste of resources at all. The dog was bieng abused, aleit in a passive way.