Ian Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 (edited) Havent read the thread so... Sounds horrific but I dont think drowning is any more or less humane than lethal injection. As for the argument that puppies cant feel pain, well thats just horseshit right there...bloody lawyers If true that this guy contacted 8 agencies for help and they, including the RSPCA turned him away then they share part of any blame being thrown about. Desperate times, desperate measures. No-one helped so whats a guy to do? How about Try 8 more - or however many it takes?, not breed dogs he doesn't want / isnt able to care for in the first place?, seek the help of a decent vet who will either find someone who will help or at the very worst allow them to pass humanely not in terror? You've presumably never had some b*****d try and drown you or you couldn't possibly think that fighting desperately for your last breath was a humane way to go! Edited June 23, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 I beg your pardon? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?! Do you honestly think that those, who didnt breed the dogs, had no idea they existed till someone wanted to dump them ect honestly have an unlimited supply of time, money and space? That they didnt take the dogs in because they didnt feel like it?! Give me a break! The guy killed the pups and he did that of his own free will and he and he alone should carry the blame. To blame those breaking their backs to save what they can when that idiot went and bred his dog is totally out of order. I also know for a FACT that if he had called a certain rescue in his area he would have been asked to call another number and those people would have taken the pups in. He never called. Completely agree with you. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than just trying to pass the buck onto someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scipio Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Completely agree with you.Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than just trying to pass the buck onto someone else. And I couldn't agree more. Why is it that certain members of society believe that every time they are in difficulty, someone else should sort out their problems. If you don't like the sound of dogs whimpering/barking (and, for that matter, don't like the sound of babies crying), they don't bloody breed. ...and that is what it is all about after all. Breeding. It is about time this Government stopped it all - greyhounds, backyard breeders, every tom, dick and harry, who thinks it might be *nice* (or profitable) to breed from their pretty dog/bitch. Tackle the problem at source for a change instead of expecting others .....the rescues and volunteers who work their socks for no reward ..... to mop up after someone else. This chap did wrong (and the vet was even more in the wrong for - to all intents and purposes - condoning the drowning) - there is just no way society should try to make excuses for drowning ANY LIVING CREATURE. The arrogance of the human race is staggering. If you are willing to take on an animal (or baby for that matter) take on ther responsibility for all its needs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkle Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Havent read the thread so... Sounds horrific but I dont think drowning is any more or less humane than lethal injection. As for the argument that puppies cant feel pain, well thats just horseshit right there...bloody lawyers If true that this guy contacted 8 agencies for help and they, including the RSPCA turned him away then they share part of any blame being thrown about. Desperate times, desperate measures. No-one helped so whats a guy to do? Sorry but let me just clarify this, you don't think drowning is more or less humane? Really? You honestly don't think that holding an animal under water whilst he/she panics, struggles for their life and finally dies as a result of water filling up its lungs is less humane than the animal being comforted by a human and given hugs and love whilst they drift off to sleep ... you really think that? If you do honestly believe that then I don't think you are any sort of animal lover. As for trying to pass the blame on to over-stretched rescues well you honestly have no idea what it is like out there, especially with regards to bull breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantan Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 I doubt very much that he tried to contact any rescue I have spoken to contacts at 2 local rescues and they hadn't been approached. There are a number of excellent rescues round here and I simply don't believe that not one of them could help. Marion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 (edited) And I couldn't agree more. Why is it that certain members of society believe that every time they are in difficulty, someone else should sort out their problems. If you don't like the sound of dogs whimpering/barking (and, for that matter, don't like the sound of babies crying), they don't bloody breed. ...and that is what it is all about after all. Breeding. It is about time this Government stopped it all - greyhounds, backyard breeders, every tom, dick and harry, who thinks it might be *nice* (or profitable) to breed from their pretty dog/bitch. Tackle the problem at source for a change instead of expecting others .....the rescues and volunteers who work their socks for no reward ..... to mop up after someone else. This chap did wrong (and the vet was even more in the wrong for - to all intents and purposes - condoning the drowning) - there is just no way society should try to make excuses for drowning ANY LIVING CREATURE. The arrogance of the human race is staggering. If you are willing to take on an animal (or baby for that matter) take on ther responsibility for all its needs too. Totally agree! Edited June 23, 2007 by WendyGdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendbert Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Please can we keep to the topic - any more insults aimed at other posters in this thread will be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Sounds horrific but I dont think drowning is any more or less humane than lethal injection. I find this rather insulting to those of us who have had to make the decision to have a beloved animal pts by a vet. When my oldie was pts earlier this year, we had a vet come out to our house, she stayed in her bed and was completely relaxed and at ease, and surrounded by love. How you can say this is no more humane than if she had been drowned, is baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurel n Hardy Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Please can we keep to the topic - any more insults aimed at other posters in this thread will be removed. this is a topic that has clearly touched a raw nerve in us all maybe we could serve future dogs/puppies better by focusing on what can we do now after the fact. 1. Complain to the RCVS 2. Complain to the local vets practice 3. Complain to the magistrates court or which ever body authorises them to sit as a magistrate 4. Follow this up with the RSPCA. any other sensible ideas and suggestions welcome. The power of us fugees should not be underestimated, I am only on one other dog forum apart from here so combined with all the others we have a loud voice, many of you here are on a few more, and as it is usually the vocal minority and not the silent majority that gets heard so why don't we reverse that and become the vocal majority instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 I find this rather insulting to those of us who have had to make the decision to have a beloved animal pts by a vet. I hadn't thought about it in this way but you're absolutely right. I was absolutely distraught when lung cancer meant that I had to help Jo on her final journey. I'm by no means wealthy but there's no way would I ever have considered drowning her to save a few measly quid & if anyone else had suggested it I'd have drowned them! this is a topic that has clearly touched a raw nerve in us all maybe we could serve future dogs/puppies better by focusing on what can we do now after the fact. I am only on one other dog forum apart from here so combined with all the others we have a loud voice, many of you here are on a few more, and as it is usually the vocal minority and not the silent majority that gets heard so why don't we reverse that and become the vocal majority instead. Good idea. Not sure which other you are on but will have a look on DP, Gr. Gap & Dog Died & if not there post a request for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 (edited) Now crossposted as above. Having done a little searching our friend Mr Lomax no longer appears to be a practicing vet but is, along with his partner, a qualified vet and barrister. They act as an expert witness etc & further details of he & his partner can be found on their website under "About us" & then "Who we are" HIS COMPANY APPEARS TO BE http://www.vetlaw.co.uk/ Quote from their website "We are committed to enhancing animal welfare in all its dimensions and will advise you how to optimise the welfare implications of your operations" - can you believe the cheek of it? It also seems that these are not the first puppies to suffer cruelty defended by Mr Lomax, though for fairness there are other cases shown of a more compassionate nature. THREE OTHER PAST CASES - 1st defence of a puppy farmer in Scotland http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2004/March20...04/scottish.htm and for fairness what appears to have been a more justified defence for a sheep and lamb http://www.hillside.org.uk/LarrietwithmumIrene.htm http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/tabloids/169326.html and an abbatoir in Ceredigion, Wales http://www.warmwell.com/meatscam.html Edited June 24, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 It also seems that these are not the first puppies to suffer cruelty defended by Mr Lomax, though for fairness there are other cases shown of a more compassionate nature. THREE OTHER PAST CASES - 1st defence of a puppy farmer in Scotland http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2004/March20...04/scottish.htm :( Can't think of anything to say right now that would be acceptable on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix21 Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 I doubt very much that he tried to contact any rescue I have spoken to contacts at 2 local rescues and they hadn't been approached. There are a number of excellent rescues round here and I simply don't believe that not one of them could help. Marion I read about this a while ago in the local paper and couldnt belive it then - sounded completely like the guy couldnt be bothered with them - and i doubt bothered to contact a rescue. was shocked he got away with it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 I had a nice surprise this morning when I received this email (have permission to pass on as statements were meant for press release) . Still due to hear from the RCVS later this week. All hinges on whether there's sufficient evidence to prove whether or not Mr Lomax is guilty of misconduct in the eyes of the reg's. Hats off to the RSPCA. Lindsey, thank-you for your e mail, I think we have spoken since about the case. I just wanted to thank you for your interest and confirm we have applied to the court for the legal advisors notes as well as obtaining those from our Counsel in the case. We are unable to appeal the courts decision, however we will be passing on the details of the evidence to the RCVS who gave us this quote... "The law provides that someone other than a veterinary surgeon may destroy an animal, providing they have the requisite skills and knowledge to do it in a humane fashion and carry it out without 'avoidable excitement, pain or suffering'. However, someone who is not experienced in animal-care should always consult a veterinary surgeon, and only once rehoming options have already been exhausted. The RCVS believes that euthanasia by lethal injection is preferable, regardless of the age of the dogs. "We understand that in this case veterinary evidence was provided on both sides. Veterinary surgeons are entitled to hold their own clinical views and it is not unusual for there to be differences of view. Without having seen a full transcript it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this particular case." In addition Defra and the BVA have provided the below quotes... "Defra are aware of the outcome of this case, but we cannot comment on individual cases. However, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 the euthanasia of an animal must only be done in an appropriate and humane manner. We do not regard drowning as either an appropriate or humane method of euthanasia". The British Veterinary Association, said: “It seems unbelievable that at a time when the Animal Welfare Act has imposed a legal "duty of care" on pet owners that a magistrate can find the drowning of these puppies acceptable. The BVA is unequivocal that drowning is an unacceptable way of performing euthanasia in dogs of any age." Thanks for your interest, I can assure you that the RSPCA will continue to prosecute such cases in the future according to our policy. ****************************************************************************** June is National Microchipping Month with many vets, councils and animal charities offering microchipping at discounted rates. Microchipping is the best method of permanent pet identification, visit http://www.rspca.org.uk to find out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanne1407 Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 A dog owner who drowned a litter of puppies has been cleared of animal cruelty because experts were unable to prove that they suffered more than if they had been put down by a vet. John Wooligan, 47, of Whitehaven, Cumbria, decided to kill the seven 10-day-old Staffordshire Bull terriers because their yapping "got on his nerves". advertisement He dropped the puppies into a water-filled plastic box, then placed a second box on top to prevent them escaping. Wooligan declined to give evidence at Whitehaven Magistrates' Court, but acknowledged the killings in an interview with the RSPCA. "They were yapping all day long," he said. "They were really getting on my nerves and their mother was rejecting them. I did not know whether I could look after seven puppies. "I panicked. My head went funny and I just drowned them. I couldn't help myself. "I thought it was wrong after I did it." He claimed to have contacted eight animal welfare organisations in search of help. Referring to the RSPCA, he added: "I even rang you lot and nobody could help me. I could not cope with seven puppies". Keith Thomas, prosecuting, said the act of drowning the puppies had caused them unnecessary suffering. But David Roberts, defending, claimed there was no evidence that such young puppies could experience pain. His view was supported by Steven Lomax, a vet with 28 years' experience, who told the court: "I have heard no evidence to hear that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane." Have your say here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...0/ndrown120.xml Can I please have two very large waterproof & escapeproof boxes to return this man's actions on him?please, please, can I? Can I? please, canI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts