BBC must tell the truth about the death of this poor dog! Controversial

Then it would appear you disagree with the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals but, as their position relates to treatable injuries ... do you think destroying a dog (any dog not just greyhound) for a treatable injury is right???

Chucking a dog in a kennel with no treatment is also animal abuse, of course, but - as you would treat your own pet dog for a broken leg - why do you accept it as right that a greyhound would automatically be destroyed for a treatable injury???

How very dare I!

Well, whether I thought it was "right" would depend on the specific circumstances surrounding the individual dog, as with most things in life mass generalisations simply are not feasible in real life. But is it abuse, imo, to put a dog to sleep? No. Dogs do not have any concept of their own mortality.

OK then hypothetically ... young (<2yrs) and otherwise fit and healthy dog, treatable fracture and rich owner????

As for having a concept of their own mortality... animals would have no 'survival instinct' if they did not!!!

Survival instinct does not equal awareness of mortality.

If i informed my dog he only had the next half hour to live before he got put down, would he be worried or continue snoozing away oblivious to his fate?

No dogs are dogs and people are people and we have different languages but dogs understand danger and if his canine friend told him he was in danger then he would know!!! That is still a concept of mortality....

As for the moral question ... hypothetically ... is it right to destroy a young (<2yrs) and otherwise fit and healthy dog (racing greyhound or pet dog), for a treatable fracture when they have rich owners who could pay for it to be repaired and when there are countless people who would offer a home for that particular dog if they knew the situation???

No - dogs cannot project their minds into future. They are, obviously, capable of awareness of IMMEDIATE danger to their, but they are incapable of understanding that in an hours, or a days, or months time we are planning on putting them down. They do not sit it the vets wondering about all the things in life they didn't get to experience etc - they have NO IDEA whats coming. They do not project into the future.

You have moved the goalposts for the 2 year old dog scenario. I can see how it's not right in your opinion, but it isn't abuse.

I think you are going about it all the wrong way Waggileaks. You, like many others, care deeply about the situation re racing greyhounds and what becomes of many of them if they are not winners - injuries or no injuries.

And upon finding out that this dog had been put down you saw this as what could have been a wonderful opportunity to bring the fate of these greyhounds to the attention of a very wide section of the public. In your view a missed opportunity.

But blaming the BBC for someone else putting the dog down is just not sensible IMHO. They could have had no idea the dog would go on to get injured and put down when they made the programme. Probably nor did you nor most others when it aired.

I've seen blurbs at the end of movies saying that someone in it had since died or even an animal star had died.

But even if they had done this I doubt whether they would have couched it in a rant against the fate of many unwanted greyhounds. They would probably have just said that **** died shortly after the film was made - she was injured and had to be put to sleep.

People can take an unwanted pet to some vets and have them PTS. People whose animals fall ill and they cannot afford the vet bills opt to have them PTS.

Animal charities put animals to sleep if they cannot rehome them. Healthy animals. Here in Cyprus almost all rescue dogs end up being PTS they only keep them for a short while.

The death of any animal is sad but the death of a perfectly fit and healthy one is even sadder.

Your time and energy would be better spent bringing this subject to the attention of as many as you can rather than arguing with a huge corporation like the BBC.

I've just googled the dog's name. It would appear to me that the BBC and this Dara saying nothing about it has resulted in the plight of greyhounds getting more publicity than if they had. It looks as if it was in all the major newspapers, even made it into Wikipedia. Articles on Greyhound Rescue sites. And a lot of BAD publicity for this Dara.

Thanks and yes we set up the Wikipedia page, which gets a lot of hits and got three articles in the Irish Press ... and have ensured that is has been discussed on a number of sighthound and dog lovers sites ... and as you rightly say, the BBC is a huge corporation ... just as Dara O'Briain has a huge following ... it is not that Snip Nua was different or special compared with other greyhounds who suffer the same fate but the BBC and Dara O'Briain have made it possible to raise awareness amongst many more people than would be possible when other greyhounds are needlessly destroyed ... that potential - and the fact that the BBC have not only repeatedly promoted a rose tinted view of greyhound racing through other programmes but have also now actively participated in, and sponsored, racing greyhounds in at least 2 radio shows - is why it is SO very important to take on Dara O'Briain and the BBC over this sorry affair ...

I won't argue with you over whether dogs experience fear of death and for how long prior to being destroyed ... often dogs struggle against the needle and whether the fear lasts 10 seconds or a week it is still fear of what is to come ... however I do take issue with your statement that the goalposts have been moved ... the scenario described fits perfectly the case of Snip Nua i.e. less than 2 years old, otherwise fit and healthy, wealthy owners plural, lots of potential adopters of the injured dog, and a likely treatable fracture .... so what's the answer? Is destruction in that case morally right?? My opinion is clear but the question was asked of you ...

First of all TV programmes are edited all the time, scenes, actors and whole chunks are often removed for many reasons.

THere is nothing new in this or necessarily underhand.

Secondly many dogs with treatable conditions or injuries are put down every day of the year because owners or rescues cannot afford to treat them.

Or they are not treated because the quality of life post the operation may be severely impaired.

Or the convalescence is impossible to ensure as of course dogs do not understand the pain they are going through is for their ultimate benefit.

Or there is insufficient aftercare available.

You say the dog had a fractured leg, you do not say which part of the leg, what type of fracture eg comminuted, stress, pathological, impacted etc all of which would govern the decision to treat, or not.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

I would conclude that the issue is not quite as black and white as you would appear to suggest or would like to fit your own personal agenda.

Personally I have no problem with a dog being put to sleep, even in the scenario you describe.

Well if that's your opinion that's your perogative but you seem to have gone a long way around to justify your position, and I for one find it very strange that any dog lover would be happy with the destruction of a dog under any circumstances let alone those described!

Thankfully I think most dog lovers would not share your opinion ... for those who don't think this is acceptable please sign and share:
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/snipnua

Agreed.

Humanely euthaenasing a dog is not cruel imo, there is no suffering after death, and can be a lot more ethical than a lot of other actions.

You say you would not expect a dog lover be happy at the destruction of a dog under any circumstances. While happy might not be the right word, personally I think there can be more cause for concern in some cases of pet dogs where the owner cannot/will not let go and too much is done in a case of very poor prognosis and high physical or psychological suffering, with the dog inevitably being put down anyway but now after a course of invasive or unpleasant treatment.

Yes there may have been a home found for this dog, after a period of recovery during which the dog would have been likely to experience some frustration and confusion, but there are a finite number of homes and the number of "surplus" racers greatly exceeds this.

This dog being re-homed is likely to have deprived another racer of a home and so not prevented a dog being euthanesied, just altered which individual it was.

There are very definitely areas of concern about racing greyhounds, possibly even more so with unlicensed flapper tracks where dogs can sometimes end up after licensed tracks.

There are justified concerns over the dogs that never even get as far as running on a track.

There are justified concerns about dogs exported to countries with less stringent cruelty laws.

There are justified issues over dogs trained on live rabbits on lines to "keep them keen". I am aware others will see this as a normal hunting behaviour but that merely demonstrates another area where people's views of "acceptable" vary, also many hunting people would disapprove of "bagged" quarry presented in this fashion.

There are dogs who are abandoned with their ears removed, or "put down" by a literal knock on the head, there are dogs whose injuries are not immediately treated who are not put down, thin-skinned, thin-coated dogs not provided with adequate heating or bedding etc, etc.

IMO these areas all involve suffering and these are the areas that require attention.

A lethal injection involves no more suffering, or "awareness" of mortality, as opposed to an awareness of a needle, than a vaccine or a healing antibiotic injection. Some dogs struggle against physical restraint for treatment of any kind from a physical examination to a nail clip to an injection, others struggle at the sight of a needle.

Treating a fracture would in any case require a general anaesthetic which would require an injection so a needle sensitive dog would suffer equally at that point at it would if PTS, plus having to undergo the post operative recovery (putting in a pin is a very physical procedure), regardless of later complications such as arthritis, assuming the break healed well.

No, it is not what I would do with one of mine in that situation but no, I do not think it is an unacceptable course of action under the circumstances of the specific case.

Had the dog been left untreated that would very much have been a cause for justified concern, and an offence under the Animal Welfare Act of failing to provide veterinary treatment when required.

You stole my words!

I have, in my life, had to have 3 beloved pets PTS. I really don't think it is right to say that 'often dogs struggle against the needle' - when there are people who have to face this agonising decision for their own dear pets.

In fact when my last cat was PTS, the vet administered one to relax them first and then another that killed them. I was encouraged to hold him the whole time and stroke him as he went off and gently brush across his eyes to ensure he was gone. It was treated VERY sensitively.

Dogs have to face needles every year for their jabs - and for other things - antibios, whatever.

To bring the fear of a needle up as a weapon in your armoury against euthanising a dog is, to my mind, scraping the barrel a bit.

You wanted the BBC to be able to help promote your pet 'cause' by treating this incident in the way YOU wanted them to treat it - you wouldn't obviously have been happy if they HAD issued a little note with the credits to say the dog had since passed on.

You want it to berate greyhound racing in general as a spectator sport. BBC ain't never going to do that in my opinion - they'd have more people complaining about them if they did that than they have now from the Greyhound Rescue Associations.

It's the job of YOU and YOUR organisations to put the spotlight on practices you disapprove of. Nothing illegal has happened here, even though you may not like it. And I disagree that it is 'abuse'.

As I said, dogs are PTS every day of the year - often fit and healthy dogs with NO injuries. Dogs who've done nothing worse than to be abandonned by their owners.

What has the fact that "fit and healthy dogs with NO injuries. Dogs who've done nothing worse than to be abandoned by their owners" have to do with this story?

As I said before this is also nothing to be happy about just as I don't believe the exploitation of greyhounds and subjecting them to dangers for which they cannot even be insured against, and then automatically destroying them rather than treating them, is something any dog lover should condone or be happy about.

Both scenarios are very wrong whether they happen, or not!

I'm sorry but what had Snip Nua done 'worse' than been born a greyhound???

And this dog didn't 'pass on' ... she was destroyed for a likely treatable injury that was incurred whilst racing for her wealthy owners who had apparently made no provision for care of an injured dog!

I also stand by what I have said about struggling against the needle and do so, as having worked in a vets - all be it some time ago - I do know what goes on and it not always a clean and stress free process by any means especially for a young fit and otherwise healthy dog ... and one who would also be hyped up on adrenaline in the case of Snip Nua and other injured race dogs. It is not that I am insensitive - just a realist who doesn't sugar coat things. However I have also had to have pets euthanised when they were suffering terminal and incurable illness or due to old age but there is a difference between an act of mercy for those that have no hope of cure and destroying any fit and healthy dog for whatever reason, injured or not. I'm glad your vets treated your own animals with kindness and compassion but I'm afraid your description of the sensitive care given to pets when they are being euthanised is irrelevant when talking about what happens to greyhounds in the vets room at a race track.

As for not being illegal - lots of things are still not illegal in lots of countries ... eating dog or cat meat, bull fighting, bear baiting, dog fighting, slavery and child labour amongst other things but that doesn't mean they are right!

You should refuse to pay the license fee then ring them up and tell them why ....
And when you go to court for none payment you can tell the judge why ....
And when you are put in prison for not paying the court fines you can tell the papers why ...


Why o why dont you go on Points of View....

Thanks but I don't think BBC 'Right to Reply' would have us on, lol ... their lackies have just removed a thread on the BBC 'Points of View' forum regarding the BBC's mis-handling of the many many complaints made by countless people and now the debacle and further insult to those who care about these dogs of editing out all traces of her from the footage ... apparently it is 'off topic' on the POV BBC section ... afraid this issue will always be 'off topic' for the BBC as their handling of the matter has been so appallingly lacking in integrity (and subsequent repeated and misleading promotion of the 'sport' and participation/sponsorship of greyhound racing is dubious in the extreme) that it could open a whole can of worms for them ...