I don't know if anyone has discussed it before, but I am appalled that the EAMT used the cops to seize the puppies from that owner. She wasn't a horder, she wasn't abusing them, she simply couldn't afford to care for their stings. In a previous episode I saw the chief offer to pay for the care of dogs owned by a horder who lived in filthy conditions. Why could that kind of compassion not be taken in this case? This woman did not want to be cruel, she simply did not want her dogs taken. Then, after the EAMT uses the cops against her, all of the puppies die anyway. If the EAMT had just offered free care in the first place instead of waiting for the cops, all the dogs may have lived!
The view could be taken that the owner was abusing the puppies by not providing prompt medical care after the bee attack. By admitting she was unable to afford it, yet at the same time refusing to turn the puppies over to an organization that could potentially save the puppies lives - the AHS - in the eyes of the law she forfeited her rights as a pet owner and forced the EAMT to have the animals seized by the police.
It's very sad, but unfortunately the owner bears much of the responsibility for the death of the puppies because quicker treatment might have saved their lives.
I had to think a long time and re watch the TIVO'd episode again. I agree and I don't with your post. I saw what you did but I also saw something else, a sense of URGENCY. They DID nicely put all of her options out there for her to consider. Her man even told her that no one wanted to keep the puppies forever, they just wanted to help cure them. She was obviously distraught over seeing her babies attacked by those rotten bees and was reluctent to pass them over to the EAMT's. She assumed (with good cause) that she would be considered "unfit" so she did not want to lose the little fella's. BUT the animal officers DID tell her repeatedly that she would get them back. She CHOSE not to listen or believe them. ALL the time she held on to those few living puppies the officers saw their chances of survival slipping away. Now, if they got frustrated and called the cops in to force the animals away from her it was for a good cause. I do not think that they were considering the facts that the woman was homeless and poor and a tad bit mentally ill, they only had eyes for the dieing dogs. That lady and her feelings were last on their minds. As it should of been. If it were me and I knew the danger they were in I would not of been to accomadating to her either at that point. IF it had been a different type of medical issue then it would of been handled differently. Like I said I saw them reacting with a sense of urgency for the dogs. They DID tell her she would get the dogs back, just do the right things by the innocent, helpless dogs and hand them over to get the much needed help they deserved that she at that point for multitudes of reasons could not provide for the puppies. They were "harsh" but it was justified and the fact that they had to fight with her for so long took all that time away from the medical treatment the dogs needed. IF she turned them over in the first few minutes that would of been more time to heal their bodies. All the time spent belly aching allowed that venom to spread and soak into their tiny, defenseless bodies. I'm sorry if you feel I'm a bad person for somewhat agreeing with the animal officers in their actions. Like I said it was all about the puppies and not the lady. IF the puppies had stepped on a piece of broken glass then the sense of urgency to get them treatment would not of been so large. It was the medical emergency that fueled their "fire" not her situation. They tried all they could nicely to help her then they saw the dogs deteriorating rapidly so they had to be stern. The ends did justify the means in this case. It sucked the dogs died. I hope the lady gets another pet and is able to properly care for it.
They were acting with a sense of urgency. The lady was reluctant to turn them over for the help they needed. Had the dogs stepped on a piece of broken it would of bben OK to accomadate and placate her but they were stung hundreds of times by bee's. All they wanted was to get those dogs in the hands of medical professionals that could help them. Her feelings were sweet but all of her belly aching took time away from their lives. Had she turned the doggy's over from the get go they could of gotten care sooner NOT later. The venom was spreading and soaking into their bodies the entire time she was refusing to turn them over. She was told she could have them but she let her feelings rule her thoughts. She obviously loved the dog's and the animal officers saw this. After all was said and done I have no doubt that had the dogs lived they would of hooked her up for free. Vaccinations, spaying/neutering, flea treatments, heart worm treatments, etc..I have seen them do awesome things for people in need with animals they truly cherished. It was a sad, sad, sad accident. Who is to say if she turned them over quicker they would of lived or no matter what they would of perished. Who knows? Only God does...I know they were ALL sad to see the puppy's die that way..I hope the lady is OK.
Well, the second posting sounded like a lawyer talking. So as far as I am concerned it is discredited just for that. As for as for you starbright, think of this way: Miami animal police like to say to treat pets as human beings, so put it in that perspective. What happens when children in a poor household suffer an injury? They are rushed to the emergency room and any thought of repayment to the hospital comes later. The parents aren't worried because they know the government isn't going to seize their children and put them in foster care because the parents can't afford the treatment out of pocket. Do you think the government should start busting down doors to seize children and pets from parents that cannot afford the treatment for every conceivable injury they might suffer? And then there's adoption to consider. Do you think that the animal shelters only adopt out to millionaires? Of course not. The shelter cannot keep the adoption list so narrow or else they would have to euthanize most of their animals (which is another point that coincides with treating pets like humans, ever heard of Dr Death?).
Interesting - I've never been accused of sounding like a lawyer before.
Refusing care for the puppies was not the best option but the owner was unwilling or unable to see it that way. Intervention was necessary, and if it hadn't been done the last puppy wouldn't have lived as long as it did.
i agree with the fourth post we should treat animal like humans my dogs are my kids but they were right to invole the police if a parent has a kid that is dieing there kid is taken away so they can get help we need to do the same thing for animals!
