The dog didn’t have to be destroyed. It had glaucoma. Untreated glaucoma leads to almost immediately blindness in dogs. The animal should have had the afflicted eye(s) enucleated, and that’s it. There would have been PLENTY of rescues that would have taken the dog in, and dealt with it’s blindness.

*MY* dog has glaucoma and it’s VERY expensive. 5ml of Xalatan is $100 - thats about $3 per drop in the eye, and it’s twice a day. It’s $200 a month for drugs. I had to get surgery on one eye where she already had gone blind, that cost $200 after all the medication. I’ve spent $3000 in the last 2 weeks since the first diagnosis.

It’s insane though that they KILLED this animal simply because it had glaucoma. All they had to do is release the IOP with a needle, then enucleate the eye. It would have been immediate relief, but they killed the animal.

Way to step in, animal control! You fucks.

ANIMAL CRUELTY: on 12/22/07, 30 year old Demetrius Wells of Gilmer St. took a male pit bull to Animal Control due to the dog having a severe eye injury/condition. The dog was immediately put down due to excessive pain and suffering that he was undergoing. Investigation by Animal Control revealed that the dog had a progressive eye condition since at least 11/30/07, when Mr. Wells took it to a veterinarian. The veterinarian diagnosed the condition as glaucoma, and advised Mr. Wells of the extreme pain and suffering that would result if the condition was not treated promptly. That veterinarian referred Mr. Wells to other practitioners who could and would treat the dog. Mr. Wells never took the dog for any follow up treatment, citing the cost, which he said he could not afford. On 2/20/07 at 3:19 PM, he was arrested on a warrant charging him with Animal Cruelty by failing to provide necessary veterinary care. (08-001027)

He waited almost EIGHT weeks to once again show how “caring” he was by dumping the poor dog in the pound….with a bulging and bleeding eye and nose.

I Guess he “could not afford” to even have the dog humanely put to sleep.

Yep…letting an animal slowly die in great pain and then dumping him…that is something we should sure not “judge”.

Why is it that those here who are so quick to question the vet’s competency….question the judgement of Animal Control….are so quick then to tell us we should not “judge” a person who allows an animal to be in agony for weeks.

We have a responsibility to those who depend on us…just as this dog did….and when we fail to act…..that is simply wrong.

I have had a horse, dogs and cats put to sleep and it was horrible…but as my vet told me…”You nave to care more about your animal than yourself sometimes?

And yes….he “allowed” it by doing nothing.

We owe it to our pets that we will not allow them to suffer…we may not always be able to treat them….but we darn well should be able to insure their live is not a living hell.

If the “govt” cancels your “medical” then it’s safe to say you are relying on our tax dollars for your care. If that’s the case, then you obviously do not have enough money to have an animal (even for pet food).

And comparing human health care to pet health care is a huge stretch. They are two different beasts.

And by the way, having a conversation with people is not judging. I am reacting to what I have read and asserting my opinion.

This is so true, “failed to seek medical care” is way too broad. For humans an emergency room can never turn someone away. Try taking your pet to an emergency animal hospital without a credit card up front and see what happens. Knowing that your only option is to surrender your pet to AC so they can immediately put him to sleep is a tough pill to swallow.

If the first vet the man saw had been competent, it looks like the medical advice would have been to remove the eye or put the dog down - services one would reasonably assume any competent vet could perform without delay and at a reasonable cost.

Competent? My only experience with Banfield (PetSmart vet), was the time I took a dog to be neutered. You can’t get much more routine than that. Both testicles were down. He nearly bled to death in the cage after surgery. They had to rush him back into surgery to stop the bleeding or he would have died. I thought he had vWD so I DNA tested him, negative. I never went back there either. If they can’t remove testicles without complications, I’m sure an eye is way out of their league. Too bad this man did not have the means to find a better vet.

http://www.thepetwhisperer.com/newsletter.html

This vet uses holistic methods including gemmotherapy which is the alternative I used for my “terminal” cancer. I do not sell this product or get any re-imbursement.

Yes, people hope beyond hope, and you know what? Sometimes it happens in real life just like in ET. I know because I have been there.

Oh, and I did not understand why it happened to me, nor why I was going to give up my life and being with my friends and family etc.

Don Earl, February 25th, 2008 at 9:55 pm , I couldn’t agree with you more!

Yeah, unfortunately, these sort of things usually end up in the hands of a public defender, looking to cut a low budget deal, rather than argue the case on the merits. It’s a situation which could potentially affect every person that owns a pet and really needs some clear precedent established to define the limits of these kind of statutes.

As things stand, simply taking the time to get a second opinion from another vet could put a person in the penalty box, or even following a vet’s suggested treatment when it doesn’t produce immediate results. The decision to prosecute is entirely arbitrary and left to the descretion of AC officers that could decide to make an example of someone simply because they didn’t like their looks or because they were in a bad mood that day. Overly broad statutes, with no clear limits or definitions, are a threat to everyone.

That guy could have said “I can’t afford a specialist, what are my other options?”. He could have called another vet and sought treatment there. He did not. He chose to do nothing, and in doing so, allowed his dog to suffer.

Near certain future suffering? Not really. Not if the owner were willing to seek the necessary treatment, even if that meant double enucleations. There are plenty of blind dogs in this world who function just fine, who live happy, healthy lives.

http://www.blinddogs.com/articles/glaucoma.htm

“The Prognosis is largely dependent upon how early the glaucoma is detected. Usually the dog is presented to the veterinarian long after any restoration of vision is possible. At this point the goal becomes a pain free and cosmetic affected eye and preventing glaucoma in the “good” eye, which will probably become affected from 6 months to 2 years after the first eye. Glaucoma requires long term management including proper medical and/or surgical therapy and regular and consistent re-evaluations.”

If the first vet the man saw had been competent, it looks like the medical advice would have been to remove the eye or put the dog down - services one would reasonably assume any competent vet could perform without delay and at a reasonable cost. There isn’t anything the high dollar specialists could have done beyond bleeding the guy for money he didn’t have, for treatments that wouldn’t have done any good. Not to mention there would likely be an instant replay as early as 6 months later, with the end result being the dog would be blind in both eyes.

So, intead of giving the guy unvarnised, practical advice on the most humane emergency care available under the circumstances, he was made to run a gauntlet of predatory, high dollar specialists that even the lynch mob on this board didn’t use in similar circumstances.

Big deleted surprise it took him several weeks to figure out the score, and to decide on what was probably the only truly humane option available to him in the long run for a dog that was only 10 months old, faced near certain future suffering, and a life of blindness.

A person that makes a good faith effort to get care for their pet in a crisis, which this guy obviously did, isn’t a criminal. Good grief! How many pet owners are prepared to face something like this 7-8 months after they acquire a puppy? Especially after getting a bum steer from the first vet they consult?

Wells’ and Animal Control’s testimony in court will likely bring out details of what really went down, including what happened during that three weeks between when the vet recommended immediate treatment and when a horribly suffering animal was finally brought to Animal Control.

AC and humane society officers walk a fine line every day.