Rspca Back Dog Owner

[Ruby1Nic]

Oh dear, I don't know what to make of this really

 

It says Lunar has now been adopted again so I guess we'd all hope that's a 'suitable' home. I feel for the previous owner as some of the comments at the end of the piece seem to suggest that the dog wasn't as uncared for as has been suggested ?

 

Re the weight issue, I have a yellow Lab, she's 4, and her weight is around the 32kg mark. She is solid but is not fat, and is fit and active. Our agility trainer says how good she looks and ou Vet has never once commented upon her weight. Yet at 'ony' 2kg more this was used as one of the factors for taking the dog back ? ( If I've interpreted that correctly )

 

All very sad for everyone involved i feel

[Ian]

I now wonder whether there is more to this as I find it hard to believe that any rescue would take a dog back rather than work with the owner if excess weight was the only issue and also that an owner who didn't genuinely care would goto the effort / expense of pursuing the case through the courts

 

 

Personally I wouldn't agree that the dog remained the property of the rescue for ever more, as far as I'm concerned the dogs are my (or any "owners") responsibility first and foremost - rescues certainly wouldn't take a dog in on a similar basis - expecting the owners to sign a transfer of ownership agreement etc & I see no reason they should in turn expect to do the same. I agree with what was said above - ie there's surely a risk this could put people off rescue when they can get a dog who is 100% there's quite easily

 

To me if this lady had had any sense she'd have gone with the posession is 9/10 of the law argument - ie contrary to what is implied in her statements this lady could have simply refused to let them into her home - and refused to let them into her home. Even the Police can't just March in without a warrant.

 

I'm surprised that the ownership issue dosn't appear to have been challenged & wouldn't be surprised if that formed part of any appeal if she does go ahead.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Ian

[celeste]

I always assumed that an animal remained the property of the rescue it was adopted from mainly to guard against the animal being passed on to another owner if everything went pear shaped.

 

It does seem a bit extreme tho' to take a dog back just because it was a bit tubby, unless of course there was a medical reason that the new owner was made aware of but chose to ignore, but then you'd think the rescue would have mentioned that in their statement. All very puzzeling

[~Canis-Equus~]

Mmm.

 

If you sign a contract then its *possible* if the rescue can prove you were made fully aware of the terms of that contract, that the dog would still belong to the rescue... but.

 

Rescues have for the most part, set donations and unfortunately for rescues the law doesnt actually look at that as a 'donation' in the same way it doesnt look at a dog as 'a family member'.

 

Instead the donation is a price paid and the family member is a possession.

 

If you bought a rug from a shop and then they tried to claim they still owned it, regardless of whether you signed a contract to that effect or not, they would not have a leg to stand on.

 

The law ought to see that you paid for your dog (and if youd said to the rescue 'no i wont pay' they would say 'you cant have the dog' generally speaking), you have subsequently paid for all its food and equipment, veterinary bills, insurance etc... the dog belongs to you, not the rescue.

 

That leads me to something else actually... if the rescue own your dog...

 

1/ Your insurance is probably invalid, as you are not the owner.

2/The rescue are liable for anything your dog does.

 

It may be that this case sets a precedent and makes rescue contracts actually worthwhile.... or it may not - only time will tell.

 

If it does set a precedent, then what happens re insurance, and what happens when Rescue A's dog is seized for being a pit bull type.... who is charged with owning a dangerous dog? The 'owner' or the Rescue?