Did they do the right thing?

It's an old article, but I was wondering what people's opinions would be on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4331467/Fat-dogs-seized-by-RSPCA.html

Personally, I don't blame them for taking the dogs due to neglect on the owner's behalf. However, I do believe that the owner should have been told what was going to happen.

R$PCA again.

I have no problem with the fact that the dogs needed to lose weight, but the way they were taken was atrocious & cruel - both to the dogs & the owner!

I know that the owner was guilty of 'killing with kindness', but her explanation for the missed appointments was plausible enough, and the lies by the R$PCA were undefendable.

Agreed. If the dogs are seized, the owner has a right to know why and the right to appeal. Don't get me wrong - she should have realised how bad the state of her dogs was. But they told her that she could have time to bring their weight down, and then seized them anyway.

It's typical R$PCA, isn't it? Take the easy cases & leave the difficult ones to sort themselves out!

Labradors are terribly prone to put on weight, we've all seen obese Labs every day.

These two dogs though areenormously fat and for their sakes someone had to step in to help. However, the RSPCA do seem to have been a little heavy-handed in this case; education and help for the owner would have been preferable to snatching the dogs away from her without allowing any contact with them. A medium way would surely have been possible.

Yes, I agree, Lynda, but the lies in order to take the dogs were terrible! All they had to do was say that they weren't losing weight the way they should & so they were being taken into care for their own health & safety.

They really let themselves down with the lies etc.

Then again, the whole story might not have been told. Wouldn't be the first time press has exaggerated or omitted!

Yes Caryll, they were deceitful and devious and cruel to both dogs and owner by not allowing subsequent contact. Too heavyhanded. The RSPCA have let themselves down.

Hate the RSPCA anyway

But they can take dogs in which the only problem is they are fat, but yet fail to be bothered about true abuse cases? Mega typical of them. And to lie about taking the dogs is just cruel

Yes to take the dogs if there health was at risk, but no to how they deceitfully took them, can't possibly be healthy for the pooches or there owner who yes was over feeding them, but also loved them very much, so why not educate her & not remove them

I know the RSPCA get knocked a lot but they do actually do some good stuff as well.

Years ago we rescued a cat (via the vet) after a neighbour had broken into the owners garage and removed the cat and a rabbit as they had naffed on on holiday for 2 weeks and left them both in there with a pile of food and water and nothing else , nobody watching them etc. Anyway to cut a long story short somebody in the vets slipped up and when the old owner contacted them (assumedly via info from the neighbour) they passed on our contact details , so 6 months after the incident we were contacted by the old owner demanding back their cat (we told him to sod off , after we had got his telephone number ) .
Not sure what to do we contacted the RSPCA and a really nice guy from there looked into it , spoke to the owner with contact details supplied , took all our details and told us if there was any more contact they would take up the case on our behalf and to be 100% sure that cat would not be moved again
So whilst I am not saying they are the best thing since sliced bread I will not condemn them to hell either and they can serve a purpose sometimes

The RSPCA do some good work. Nobody denies that.

But they are mainly motivated by money & publicity, they ignore some of the difficult cases & go after the easy catch too many times. Their policy on putting to sleep is atrocious and sometimes bordering on cruel.

They also have a blood sport devotee as their patron - and yet they are against blood sports?

I do agree it was wrong for the RSPCA to take the dogs like that, with no warning or even advising them of what the vet had said. But, on the hand, the dogs clearly are at risk of being overweight, and although the owner had tried to lose the weight on the dogs, she also did have a reasonable excuse as to why she could not make the vets appointments. though, the animals should not have reached that kind of weight in the first place! But as always the rspca are just complete idiots.

I don't even need to read it to know that if it is the RSPCA it probably wasn't the right thing.