Man castrates dog

Zapperzy

Danrua wrote: »

To all of you out there who are concerned by Rusty's wellbeing, don't.
Rusty's owner was not the man who represented him in court but his elderly parents, who are 88 and 95 years of age. Those who heaped abuse on this man as an "feckless owner" were wrong. As the perpetrator pleaded guilty this man did not need to appear at all but choose to do so to represent a little animal who could not speak for himself. Nor was he given free legal aid or allowed to stand up in court and tell totally unsubstantiated lies.
As was untruthfully reported in some papers, he never mentioned Vet's fees or indeed asked for compensation. That these fees and compensation were donated to the ISPCA was not mentioned, was the fact that they were not paid yet.
It is a scary time at present for elderly people living in rural areas and it is wrong that this elderly couple should be vilified for fearing for their dog's safety' and choosing to give him away. Rusty is now in a loving home and is the darling of four teenage girls and is brought back to visit on a regular basis.
That this couple would allow their dog to cause such stress to the good neighbors in the community over a three year period is unthinkable, and if the act itself wasn't bad enough, to stand up in court and seek to denigrate them was unforgivable. As for Rusty's "alleged" danger to children it says a lot that every neighbor who offered to take him in all had children in their homes. This was deemed unwise as he may have wandered home again.
This is a sad story with a happy ending and thats what people should remember, if their is a moral to this, it is that we should never rush to judge without the full facts. As I mentioned earlier, neither should we believe all we read in the papers.

But you still haven't answered the question as to how Flood had access to Rusty? Was he removed from the owner's property or allowed to wander onto Flood's property?

Danrua

I got involved in this case as a member of the family who owned Rusty. He was given to this elderly couple after their previous dog died of cancer.
Many people commented on the fact that no one noticed that the dog was in distress for some time, this was easily explained by the Vets who did such a great job in treating him.
When the rubber was applied to the little dog it would have been painful for only a short time, the blood would then have been cut off, resulting in total numbness. This would have been the same to you or me as a sleeping leg. The vets explained that it was only after several days when the wound became infected and blood poisoning set in that he became very ill. Within an hour of his distress being noticed, Rusty was with the Vet and apart from a small trip home was in care for Eleven days. The Vets were fully informed that no expense was to be spared in his treatment, it was to their great credit that after all this time in care they only charged a fraction of what it cost.
As the defendant pleaded to the crime, neither the Gardai, ISPCA nor the Vets got a chance to have their say or express their feelings in this case.
It was reported wrongly that the owner called the Gardai and thus took a case against the man who did this. It was in fact the Vet who brought it to the attention of the ISPCA and they then called the Gardai, as was their duty.
It was the state who prosecuted the case and it at no time involved the owners of Rusty.
As i mentioned before, none of these bodies at anytime suggested that the owners were in any way at fault, either for the crime or in their treatment of Rusty, before or after this incident.
I think that as the state did prosecute, successfully, it would be very unfair that the owners who did no wrong, should now be tried online and found guilty.

ppink

Danrua I assume by you not responding to where/how Mr Flood got hold of Rusty that the dog was wandering. I have no doubt the situation was very stressful for all those involved and I doubt any of us would believe all that is reported in newspapers however the one thing most people will say is that if the dog was not wandering the entire incident would not have occured
(this is of course assuming Mr Flood did not come and lift Rusty from his owners property)
If the ISPCA did not say that wandering dogs is wrong then they should have, it is a big problem in our country and I am sure it is also against the law.
I do feel sorry for the owners because they are elderly and it was a very stressful situation for them and not something they need to be dealing with at their time of life.

Danrua

I know what you mean, and understand as a country dweller all my life.
As was testified to in court there was no denying that the dog did wander occasionally. That the defendants children played a part in this was never denied by him or anyone else. Children love small dogs and to take him for walks and even home to play with was a habit some local children should have been dissuaded from doing, that the dog grabbed a chance to visit a home and children he trusted was no excuse for what happened.
It was significant in this case that the only official complaint made about Rusty was after the incident.
That the dog warden would be sent to the home of the owners by a man claiming Rusty was on his property and trying to mate with a pedigree bitch.
You can imagine what the warden thought, arriving to find a little castrated dog with a huge collar on his head and barely able to walk.
I don't think that anyone who was not there will ever realize what went on.