Category: RSPCA

Articles concerning the RSPCA

When to rescue a distressed dog from a hot car.

44% of motorists admitted in a survey to leaving their dog in a car & 77% of these on a hot day.

Every year for as far back as I can remember, and that’s a long time, dog owners have continued to ignore all advice about leaving their dogs in cars. It is not a fair or sensible action in any circumstance, but particularly reckless and thoughtless on hot and humid days. A recent survey in 2017 by Confused.com discovered that 44% of motorists admitted to leaving their dog unattended in a car and worryingly 70% of those also admitted they had left their dog for over 8 minutes on a hot day.

Confused.com also attempted to find out how many people would intervene if they saw a distressed dog in a car. They used a lifelike toy dog and played sound effects of it in distress and more than 74% of drivers failed to come to its aid. An interesting point of this survey was that 23% of people did not know their legal rights if they were to cause damage while rescuing the dog and were not sure who to call for assistance.

Would you break a window to rescue a dog from a hot car?

Would you be the person to risk being prosecuted for damaging a car or would you pass the buck to someone else? Of course the conundrum would not arise if we all acted like the dog lovers we are supposed to be.

Under section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1971 you can damage someone’s property if you think the owner of the property would consent if they were aware of the situation. The problem is that if you did decide to commit the act, the odds are against you getting away with it, because dog owners are quick to take offence if anyone dares to accuse them of not looking after their pet properly and are likely to report you.

Back in the day it was far easier to break into cars if you knew some of the tricks of the trade, but new cars are far more sophisticated. I have called out the police in the past who have managed to get in without causing damage while others have turned up, asked me if I agreed the dog was at risk and just smashed the window with no ceremony.

But how do you judge whether a dog is at immediate risk, how long it has been in the car and how long before it is likely to succumb to heatstroke? There is no real answer to that and this is where you can get into trouble for unnecessarily taking drastic action. Some breeds are more prone than others. Flat nose breeds have difficulty in breathing at the best of times so should never be left and old dogs are also more prone.

Cars can become ovens in a matter of minutes with or without the windows open – that’s why we like to have the air-con on when we are in them.

Can you recognise heatstroke in a dog?

A dog will pant excessively trying to expel heat from its body. It will also salivate or drool. In latter stages the dog will vomit, collapse, become unconscious and die without help. It is not a pleasant death.

So what to do?

It all depends on the situation. Most people have mobile phones so take a photo or better still a video of the dog, the car registration, the car park ticket if there is one and where it is parked in the sun, although it can get hot without direct sun. You can use this information to make a complaint to the police. At a shopping mall or event you can go to customer services and get an announcement made.

If the dog has symptoms of heatstroke call the police on 999 -not the RSPCA who do not have powers (as we won’t let them), or the manpower to get there quickly. Don’t let the police fob you off to the RSPCA. If you intend breaking in tell the police you are about to commit the act and why.

The bottom line is that we shouldn’t need to have this discussion if dog owners just acted sensibly and thought more of their dog’s welfare.

The only dog that can be left in a car.
More info on heatstroke

Goldfish eating, social media and Neknominate

The recent prosecution by the RSPCA of Josh Coles for eating a goldfish that he had just won at a fairground in Stafford caused a stir on social media and revulsion in many people, but there are those that see it as just a bit of harmless fun. Josh Coles pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community service order, £385 costs and was strangely banned from keeping fish for 5 years.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue, I’m an animal lover”.

To its credit, the RSPCA stepped in early on when the craze became popular and has prosecuted many cases over the years but has perversely been accused of heavy handedness and expending money on pointless and worthless prosecutions as they are only fish.

Many people would suggest that as we pay little attention to fish slowly gasping for breath and asphyxiating on the quayside or on fish market slabs and that we find it entertaining to watch celebrities eat live small animals on reality shows why should we be so uptight about a goldfish.

What obviously shocked people the most was the fact that he ate a live goldfish, filmed it and displayed it on YouTube for no other reason than to gain fame and notoriety. It could also be that we identify goldfish and their ilk as pets not food, so we get upset when some inept unthinking person eats one at a funfair, in a Macdonalds restaurant or in the local pub.

Although these acts are mostly done under the influence of alcohol and for a dare there are many which are intentional and planned. Back in 2012, Louis Cole gained fame for regularly eating unusual live animals such as tarantulas and scorpions on his YouTube channel until he came unstuck after he ate a simple goldfish, as he didn’t realise that fish, by having a spine, are covered under anti-cruelty laws and he found himself under investigation by the RSPCA.

Eating live small animals is a common practice and a sure way of getting hits on social media which is awash with such videos. The sad part is that so many young adults appear to find it acceptable behaviour and amusing despite its lack of originality.

It was probably a surprise to many people that it is still lawful to continue this archaic tradition of giving goldfish as prizes in the first place, but it was yet another omission from the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006. Of course the frequency of these incidents could have been reduced if it had been banned as the fish would not have been so easily available.

Social media & Neknominate is mainly to blame.

The online drinking game of neknominate has fuelled the trend over the last few years. In 2014 a 22-year old named Gavin Hope prepared a cocktail then swallowed a pet goldfish and washed it down with a pint as a neknominate dare and was heavily penalised with a £330 fine and £3430 costs. Some take it too far and in the same year Sheldon Jeans swallowed a live frog and lizard and was prosecuted receiving £1,200 in costs.

Although such behaviour is nothing new, social media encourages far more of it in this modern era. There is a pattern to it though, as it mainly involves drunken young males who once they find themselves in court declare they didn’t mean any harm and believe it is funny.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue and I’m an animal lover”

In another incident a Robert Atkinson aged 20 was filmed by his friend Lewis Summers, who ironically worked in a solicitors office, swallowing a live goldfish in their local MacDonald’s having first put it in a pint of beer. Atkinson pleaded guilty and Summers guilty to aiding and abetting and they were both ordered to serve 40 hours of unpaid work and pay a £723 fine each, alongside a victim surcharge of £60. It was a premeditated action and yet he viewed himself as an “animal lover”.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue with it being a small animal. I’m an animal lover myself and I didn’t know I was committing an offence. I have thousands of followers on social media, and I posted the video because I knew it would go viral. Some people thought it was funny but there were a few who thought it was cruel.

Robert Atkinson in his defence.

Judges and Magistrates appear to take the issue seriously.

What is interesting is that magistrates and judges appear to agree that it is a serious act and have made this quite clear. At the trial of Gavin Hope presiding magistrate, David Randall, called it “a stupid thoughtless incident” and at the trial of Atkinson and Summers the judge, to his credit, summed it up in this way and I cannot put it any better:

The real question is how far down the evolutionary scale should we go in pursuing prosecutions of people who commit such acts of cruelty before it is viewed as nonsensical and heavy handed. Theoretically any lack of respect of a living creature must surely be tackled as who knows where it might lead if left unpunished.