Moody

Yes Tdierikx, you are quite right in saying that some vets refuse to undertake late term abortions. My brother in law is a vet. He has practised for over 40 years now. He has been called upon to deal with some pretty confronting experiences dealing with animals, but I vividly recall him telling the story once of how he was required to conduct a late term abortion on a bitch and the emotional trauma for him of pulling out a uterus and 8 near term puppies. It was ghastly to listen to him relate that and to see how it obviously affected him. He has refused to undertake this procedure ever again.

Absolutely agree with you Tidierikx, and Aphra and minimax. As I said before, those who have taken on the task of helping this girl and her dozen pups, or who are offering to help, should be thanked. All highly reputable, conscientious and principled rescue folk. Many of us will vouch for this. Let's just end all the agitating now.

"But let's be honest, here. Pups of any breed, unknown or known, sell more quickly than adults" I'm sure that there couldn't possibly be an insinuation here that this bitch and her pups have been taken in as a revenue-raising exercise, because anyone who knows Rhonda and Nina would know that this would be the very last motivation in the world for the rescue of this girl, and would know it would be entirely about ensuring that a worthy dog does not lose her life and those of her late stage pregnancy pups when no one else in the rescue community is putting their hand up for them, despite entreaties for help week after week after week when this dog was in the pound. But, not all people reading this thread may be aware of the exceptional work of Rhonda and Nina and their complete lack of interest in profitting from puppies, so best to clarify any possible misconceptions on this score. I for one feel gratitude that Nina and Rhonda stepped up when no-one else did and want to thank them for their constantly dedicated commitment to the dogs, through thick and thin when rescue can be difficult and trying for all sorts of reasons. I'd respectfully suggest that a separate thread be started for those interested in continuing a discussion and swapping experiences about whelping and puppy raising. I'm sure that there would be a lot of interest in a general discussion about that.

In that case, if she should have been desexed as soon as pregnancy was suspected, the pound should have been taking care of that. But they didn't, and her pregnancy progressed. Personally, I think it would be a cause for ethical concern to see either a bitch in advanced pregnancy stages put down, or the pups aborted. I'm not sure how that can be advocated. And that is apparently what would have occured if this girl didn't get her rescue. I'd respectfully request that the very strong language that has emerged in this thread be toned down. None of us know the full circumstances but we do know that the people who have taken on this girl and the pups are the best friends a dog could ever ask for and would only ever act in the best interests of the dogs...all of them.

What has happened with the RSPCA that makes everyone so...distrustful? Sorry for my ignorance here. I've had a look at the Dog and Cat Management Act. The effect is that the owner is assumed to be the person in whose name the dog is registered. I'd say that a microchip registration is as effective as a council registration for these purposes. I really can't see that the RSPCA has grounds for asserting they could ignore the chip. It is doubly disturbing now that the RSPCA is stating that the dogs have been adopted knowing that the breeders have been trying to get them back and that they were deficient in not scanning/or scanning but not contacting owners in the first place. This just doesn't feel right. I can't see that there are any rights to submit a FOI request. The laws apply mainly to government bodies, councils, universities, hospitals etc. This is from only a cursory glance. If someone has a better idea of FOI laws happy to hear it. The only other way to obtain information is if legal proceedings are initiated and requests for documents are made as part of the "discovery" process. I haven't really thought it through yet, but just off the cuff, it might be possible to make out a case that the adoptions are void/voidable because RSPCA didn't have the legal entitlement to sell the dogs. I don't think anyone would have the apetite to launch proceedings, but this at least might be the basis of a letter to RSPCA demanding that they account for the dogs...in effect, trying to force more information. I guess it depends on how important this is to everyone. If the breeders/owners are no longer interested then no-one will get very far.

Even if RSPCA did give a verbal response, the fact that they made no contact with the registered owner of the dog, on its face, is evidence to support either a) they didn't scan, or b) they did scan but failed to make contact with the owner. It is very difficult to assert that it is a problem with the chip if this has occured with both dogs. However, a case of negligence will only be relevant if there is some sort of loss. In this case, it would have to be the loss of the dogs, but let's hope this this doesn't happen, or the loss of the funds involved in getting them out of the pound, but neither of those things has happened yet. There are also possible questions about RSPCA having failed in its duty of care towards the dogs for keeping them in the pound for so long when a cursory check could have reunited them with their owners long ago, and the fact that a behaviouralist has had to be brought in supports the breach of duty of care position, but practically, this is not necessarily going to offer you immediate assistance in retrieving the dogs either. I think it borders on extortion to refuse to release the dogs without reimbursement of behaviouralist fees. I'm not familiar with the cases that obviously make people in this list concerned that the RSPCA would take retribution against anyone who "challenged" their authority by putting down the dogs, but given the comments in this thread, that is clearly a very real concern in the minds of some people. This combination of factors is really disturbing. I think you need to front up to the RSPCA with both a letter of advice from a lawyer and the media in tow. The letter need only be a few paragraphs long, basically advising you that have no liability to reimburse RSPCA for the fess of the behaviouralist, that you are entitled to instant reclaim of the dogs under the normal procedures and fees for your particular circumstances. The letter should be quite strong in complaining about holding the dogs pending payment of these fees and the consequent feeling of coercion that you have felt. But, if the media is to be present, don't go too far with this and do be careful about any possible allegations made against the RSPCA publicly in case they allege there has been a defamation against them. Depending on the level of threat that you feel, please do create a record of other cases that you know about where the RSPCA has taken retribution by killing the animal and use that information judiciously (i.e. not publicly). Lawyers can be painfully slow to turn around these sort of letters so you'll need to be quick. It would be worth ringing the Law Society to find out if any of the larger firms do pro bono work for animal welfare. I'm not sure that they would be all that interested if it is a singular case/singular owner, but if this is a pattern of beahviour that results in real risks to the animal, they might be more interested. You will need to compile a record of past cases to demonstrate that pattern. Good luck, I hope it all works out for you.