What do you think?
Here’s the picture of Jane right after we picked her up:
And here’s the statute on animal cruelty in the second degree…
16.52.207
Animal cruelty in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal.
(2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence:
(a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure;
Does waiting this long to take advice and seek medical care for a duck constitute animal cruelty?
What do you think?
19 Comments
animal cruelty – YES. the former owners should be questioned and be monitored and have their other animals taken away. Pronto
Absolutely. Definitely construes animal cruelty. I remember hearing about tons of cases regarding dogs and cats in which such neglectful treatment ended up resulting in animal cruelty charges, so why not a duck?
omg yes, this is cruelty.
This is a clear case of cruelty. “Benign neglect” is a conceptually flawed category on all levels. Firstly, a human being makes an explicit commitment to care for an animal when s/he takes that animal in to her/his life. Secondly, good intentions are actively malacious if they remain at the level of mere thought. They prove that the responsible party knows better – and there are ALWAYS alternatives. Mr. Dodo’s people, for example, made the difficult choice to find him a better forever home. Rescue groups exist, in part, to enable people to turn an animal they can no longer care for over. Turning an animal in in such a circumstance is not an extraordinary act – it is a basic responsibility. Finally, (I could go on, but I will spare everyone) Jane’s suffering was so extreme that NO degree of blindness or hardship should have prevented a mature person from taking action to help her. If I had the information for her former owners I would report them without hesitation or doubt. It would be an injustice to Jane, who endured so much before finding compassion and peace at Flapper’s house, not to report them. We all need to stand up to animal abuse in every form so that, perhaps, one less animal will suffer like Jane, and/or one more person will begin to regard animals as ends in themselves, not objects or worse.
The owner’s behavior was clearly reckless, and the negligence was of a criminal extent, and thus, “inflicts unnecessary suffering.”
The owner failed to “provide the animal with necessary… sanitation (and) medical attention” resulting in “the animal suffer(ing) unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain” leading to the animal’s subsequent death.
Now imagine what somebody with legal training could do. Or maybe just somebody from Animal Planet. Or maybe even that “Get Jesse” dude.
It is an ovbious case of neglect. Unresponsabillity and cruelty.
This should never have gotten this far.
I remember someone on your blog mentioning that the owners had a child that needed a lot of attention and thus they overlooked the serious situation of these ducks. I can understand that to a certain extent. We all have things on our minds and sometimes we overlook the first signs of poor health in our animals.
I’ve been there, and most of us have been there once before. Is this neglect?
I feel guilty over loosing Sadie, I was too late to save her. Is that neglect?
It is easy to judge, I’d like to know more about the situation and circumstances.
It’s a thin line. I recall a few cases of animal neglect where people didn’t look after their animals and some died or lived in poor circumstances. The animal inspection took animals away from their care. In some cases the owners had psychological problems and were so far gone that they couldn’t ask for help.
I suffer from depression in winter and at that time it’s hard for me to keep myself going, caring for the animals is a heavy burden but I do the best I can. Should I not have pets? I don’t think so, because they are my rescue too. If I didn’t have them I would be lost. But having said that I would never have let this happen to my animals, it looks like this has been going on for too long. When their first duck died they took action, right?
I find this a difficult discussion. I think we should firstly investigate what has been going on, not judge too harsly.
YES! Cruetly. When it comes to animals, who cannot speak for themselves and often cannot care for themselves, it is their caretakers that agree to take full responsibility when they take the animal into their lives. When you adopt an animal, you are saying you have the financial, emotional, and physical ability to make sure the animal is happy, healthy and well-loved. If you cannot agree to these things, you should not adopt the animal.
It’s more than obvious that the sick ducks in your care were not getting what they needed to be happy and healthy, and hadn’t been for awhile. Regardless of the reason, their former caretaker should have put a stop to their neglect a LONG time ago.
Well, this is what you said in your initial post:
“The family that had these ducks lost one already from the same illness. The duck they lost earlier they had taken to a vet several times and given it several rounds of antibiotics. It spent 3-weeks in their house with special care and still passed away. That duck along with these three came to them fully-grown in November, all from the same place. They still have another couple of ducks who came from another source, and they were in perfect condition, along with turkeys and chickens and sheep and many other very well-cared-for animals. These ducks had good quality food, clean water and a predator-proof pen, as well as run of the yard in the day. So… they came from a good family situation, but they’re obviously in trouble health-wise.”
So you already assessed that the other animals aren’t in danger. In fact, you seem to almost absolve the owners from responsibility in this statement. Now, I agree, the ducks are gross looking, and they didn’t get that way overnight. Were they only taking the one other duck to the vet? Because it sounds like they were addressing the situation.
I guess I’m most curious why you are questioning this now when it didn’t sound like you felt this way in the beginning. Is it as simple as you didn’t know the level of sickness at that point? What has you prepared to completely disregard the initial assessment and thrust these people into the legal system?
In regards to Kim’s post further up the page about taking all their animals away, you’ve already stated that all the other animals appeared to be healthy and well cared for. Clearly something went awry in caring for the ducks. Like Liv above said, people need to not jump to conclusions and there needs to be an investigation.
If you can prove the owners never took her to a vet/got medical attention for her, then yes (!). Definitely yes.
Absolutely. Animal cruelty is not defined only by beating an animal. It can include neglect, inadequate food, water, shelter and medical attention. That statute was written for cases like this. Perhaps these people do care for the rest of their animals, and perhaps the rest of the lot appear to be happy and healthy, however the bottom line is that these ducks were not properly cared for. I’m not sure the rest of the animals need to be taken away, though. I have learned from Mr Flapper and Co. that caring for a duck is infinitely harder than caring for a cat or a dog. The have the same basic needs, sure. Tiff, you have said on many occasions that it is difficult to tell if a duck is not feeling well. In this case, it does seem obvious that these ducks are in trouble.
At the very least, this situation must be investigated by the SPCA/law enforcement. It may not hurt to take away the remaining ducks. Their situation as a whole ought to be considered. Did they have any training before bringing home the ducks? What is their financial situation? Can they afford proper vet care for all of the animals? What course of action did they take with the other ducks when they were sick?
To address Elaine’s point, perhaps it is being questioned now as it appeared that the owners were doing what they could? Once the ducks came to Chez Flapper, it may be the case that more was learned of their sad situation that was previously known. It did appear that there was hope for them when they arrived here.
Upon looking at the heartbreaking photos of Jane, my gut response would be YES. However, as others have said, it’s important not to jump to conclusions. I am also confused as to which ducks were taken to the vet — was it only that first duck, but not Jane, Lily, and Sam?
And how did the care of the special-needs child interfere with the care of the ducks? Was it that the family couldn’t afford to bring the three to the vet? That is understandable, but they should have immediately given the ducks to a foster parent who could have afforded the care, rather than letting the illness linger. As Elaine says above, they didn’t get that way overnight.
It doesn’t seem to be a clear-cut case, and I don’t have the knowledge to make an assessment.
My reaction is strong yes. It’s not the fact that reportedly the other animals are in good condition – its the fact they let these ducks SUFFER. If the ducks (Jane, Lily and Sam) illness is not curable, why let them suffer?
To say in theory, we did our best, but they just didn’t get better and so we let them suffer – not able to get food, swollen joints which are painful, lack of feathers and etc…. is not acceptable. The kind thing would have been to have the poor ducks put to sleep and end their suffering.
So one wonders, at least I do, have there been other animals there in similar situations in the past that suffered? I don’t mean suffered from a short illness that was cured, but truly suffered. Suffered like Jane.
It is cruel to let animals get to a point that they are days, hours, moments from death the way that Jane appeared to suffer. If the former owners don’t have the knowledge to care for waterfowl, then they need to get educated. If it’s a case of money then reach out to animal rescue groups sooner. But for the love of God, don’t let the poor animals suffer.
As animal people we all know there is a point of no return. There is a point where our help is not going to make a difference. The kind loving thing is to put the animal(s) to sleep. End their suffering. Show some compassion.
I would also seek more information from the place where the ducks came from. There has to be a story there too.
So my strong reaction is to the suffering. Like cats sometimes its hard to tell when they are sick because they hide it well, like ducks, but there is a point where you know something is wrong. Feather quality and the look in Jane’s eyes should have been a strong indicator. (There are/were three ducks currently with same indicators)
Indicators that can not be ignored. As I said, there is a point of no return and then the compassionate thing is to set them free from their suffering.
I pray that Lily and Sam make a full recovery. If not I at least know, albeit difficult, that Tiff will do the right thing and end their suffering if it comes to that.
Jane will always stick with me.
K~
Best to investigate further before coming to such a serious decision – but if there is solid evidence then yes.
Report them. Let ASPCA decide.
I believe so, definitely. And BogieKitty has a good point — if you suspect it, report, and the people qualified to make the decisions will do it.
Big hugs, Tiff. Thank you for looking out for the beaky types.
Poor, sweet girl. What happened to her? Is this the quacker I’ve been hearing in the AM? Hope she’s on the mend.
Nicky
PS I have an AFLAC duck for you if you want it…And it QUACKS!!!
Oh Crumb. I hadn’t read to the bottom. I’m so sorry Jane didn’t make it. Let me know if we can do anything. Your Neighbors, Nicky & Brad.
It’s quite clear this is animal cruelty. Whether a person can afford to take their pet in, is not the case. They shouldn’t have any kind of pets unless they can take care of them. Just by looking at that very first photo of Jane – her feathers, her color, her feet – you knew someone hadn’t kept up with keeping them healthy. A lot of people mean well by their pets, including hoarders – they have good hearts but we have to be realistic here. You can tell something is wrong and an animal needs to be checked out.
Pringles says that calling animal control does no harm IF the family isnt doing any wrong. Pringles has the responsibility of looking after animals and its Pringles duty to make sure they are safe. If even you suspect something is wrong and you dont call them Pringles says shame on you.
Animal Control deals with a ton of these calls and it really isnt a reflection on people unless they find problems, in that case the call is justified.
Pringles was necleted and left to die and my mom woudlnt have been as nice as Mr Flappers mom I can tell you that. Mom has had to make those calls before and she knows how hard this was. Pringles says good job Flappers mom for caring about the ducks : )