Man castrates dog

Mr. Manager · 15-12-2010 7:06pm #1

Just saw this in the After Hours Forum.

The Letterkenny District Court, County Donegal, heard that a local man castrated his neighbor’s dog after it attempted to mate with his pedigree dogs.
Eddie Flood (43), from Carnasaull, Termon, said Frank McGettigan’s cross-breed terrier, Rusty, had been allowed to wander freely. He said that he had removed the dog from his property up to 20 times.
When the terrier attempted to mate with one of his pedigree border collies he took matters in to his own hands. Flood attached a lambing tail (used to remove tails on newborn sheep) to Rusty’s testicles and castrated it.
The Irish Independent reported that Flood had admitted to the offense but said that his dogs has been “pestered” by Rusty. He explained that he had been forced to lock his dogs in a shed to keep the terrier away.
His lawyer, Sinead Bradley, said that neighbors confirmed that Rusty was a danger to female dogs in the area, according to the Daily Star. Judge Seamus Hughes questioned whether males in the area were safe from Mr Flood.
He was fined €230 in veterinary bills and €500 in compensation for his neighbor Mr McGettigan. Mr Gettigan said that he had had to give the dog away after receiving the vet’s bill. He also said that he had feared for Rusty’s safety in the neighborhood.

Why would he not just pop in to the neighbor and ask him to be more vigilant with letting his dog go for a wander? Or drop the terrier back and explain the grief he is causing his dogs... The mind boggles.

Asphyxia · 15-12-2010 7:08pm

When I heard this it really angered me, poor dog

Whispered · 15-12-2010 7:19pm

I don't agree with it obviously - but the owner of rusty sounds like a bit of an ass too. He had been removed 20 times, another neighbour confirmed the dog was a danger, allowed to freely wander, had to be "given away" when the vet bill arrived (I don't understand that bit, sure he'd still have to pay the bill right?). He "feared for his safety"?? If he feared for his safety he wouldn't have allowed him wander in the first place.

Both men involved should be made an example of, how NOT to treat your dog and how not to deal with a neighbours problem dog.

In fairness to Mr Flood, I have heard of people killing dogs for less, he could have bundled the dog into his car never to be heard from again, it happens unfortunately commonly. He didn't, he must have been at his wits end. How do we know he didn't ask the owner to keep the dog off his land. The owner was obviously aware there was a problem, as were the neighbours obviously.

How is the dog now?

Cherry Blossom · 15-12-2010 9:07pm

Saw this in the local paper on Mon and the Sun y'day, apparantly he had already returned the dog home on more than 20 occasions. (Persistant little buggars - Westies :P)If it were me I'd have dropped him into the pound, he might have thought twice about keeping him secure if he'd had to pay the release fee x 20

On the giving away part I suspect he may have had it pts, either by the proper route or otherwise

Bullseye1 · 15-12-2010 9:38pm

It would have been cheaper if he had gotten permission to have the dog neutered professionally.

joconnor59 · 15-12-2010 9:46pm

if this so called prat eddie did that to my dog i would leave eddie in the same way he might not be such a smug bastard then that is cruel.. this eddie guy must seem to think he can do what he likes.. there is a moron born every day !! angry dog lover

Cherry Blossom · 15-12-2010 9:50pm

Whispered wrote: »

How is the dog now?

This all happened in September 2009, it's just got to court last week which is why we are hearing about it now, the dog is long gone, he 'gave it away'.

mikemac · 15-12-2010 9:55pm

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Why would he not just pop in to the neighbor and ask him to be more vigilant with letting his dog go for a wander?

And that would work with some people but this owner didn't care, the dog had wandered onto Floods property twenty times

He had lambing rings though I don't know if he is a farmer. If that dog was bothering sheep and not other dogs it would have been shot

Cherry Blossom · 15-12-2010 10:01pm

feelingstressed wrote: »

And that would work with some people but this owner didn't care, the dog had wandered onto Floods property twenty times

He had lambing rings though I don't know if he is a farmer. If that dog was bothering sheep and not other dogs it would have been shot

He is, his dogs are working collies, 'neighbour' in that part of the world doesn't mean next door either they live a mile away form each other.

joconnor59 · 15-12-2010 10:07pm

well i dont know the full story and but i am sure it could have been sorted out in other ways instead of been so cruel to a poor dog... to be honest i dont want to comment on this moron ever again..!!! thank you..

Whispered · 15-12-2010 10:14pm

joconnor59 wrote: »

well i dont know the full story and but i am sure it could have been sorted out in other ways instead of been so cruel to a poor dog... to be honest i dont want to comment on this moron ever again..!!! thank you..

100% agree - but the personl who did it is not the only bad guy in the story. The poor dog didn't have much of a chance with such a moronic owner.

Cherry Blossom · 15-12-2010 10:46pm

Completely agree and glad he had to pay the vet's fees, but the €500 'compensation' would have been better donated somewhere, and the owner should have been fined another €500 for his part in it instead of being given €500 because he himself chose to 'give away' his dog

. It is also reported that Floods children had become afraid of the dog. What would he have done if his dog bit one those kids? The owner of any animal is responsible for keeping it confined to their own property unless they are accompanying it.

meathstevie · 15-12-2010 11:40pm

Folks, I might come accross as incredibly crude but when a dog persistently wanders onto a farm and continiously gets embroiled in all sorts of bother with farm animals ( be it working dogs, cattle, sheep, poultry,... ) there's only two things you can do. Option one is a bullet, option two is the dog warden and being put down.

It's sad for the dog but there's limits to everyone's patience.

ISDW · 15-12-2010 11:42pm

This is a very sad story. Mr Flood obviously shouldn't have done this to the dog, but I actually feel sorry for him, he mustn't have known what else he could do. A dog keeps coming onto your property, you take it back to its owner time after time after time after time. It mates with your bitch, so either you let the bitch have pups, or you take it to the vet each time for the injections to stop it having pups, which is not good for the bitch.

This came up on a thread previously, and apparently this way of neutering male dogs is quite common in places like Australia, on farms in the middle of nowhere, with no vets nearby.

As always an irresponsible owner gets away with it, and the dog suffers.

Zapperzy · 16-12-2010 4:31am

That made me sick to the stomach. What the hell were they thinking. They are now rewarding people for allowing their dogs to roam. Sure I should just through my dog out the door and someone might hand me a cheque for €500 'compensation', compensation for what exactly, he got rid of the dog. :mad: At the very least that should have been a donation to charity.

Most farmers (Im presuming he's a farmer because he has lambing rings) don't even give roaming dogs a second chance nevermind 20 chances and they usually get the bullet, or driven away and dumped somewhere. I admit that was the wrong way of going about it, he should have gotten the warden involved but it doesn't say there that he didn't, it wouldn't surprise me if he did involve the warden but he didn't do anything. :rolleyes:

And 'he feared for rustys safety in teh neighbourhood' is just laughable, what 'caring' owner lets their dog wander? :mad: And they 'fear for the safety of other males in the area' is just the icing on the cake, yes people who allow their dogs to wander should fear for their safety. Flood isin't some beast going around stealing dogs and torturing them for fun! :rolleyes:

Flood should have gotten a slap on the wrist. Mc Gettigan should have been done for not keeping his dog under control. As for the judge! :rolleyes:

The Sweeper · 16-12-2010 5:47am

If Mr Flood did what I believe he did, the 'lambing tail' referred to (though I've never heard the term) is a form of elastic band castration used to both castrate and dock tails in lambs.

It isn't a case of looping your run of the mill elastic band around the dog's balls - there's a device that stretches a tight elastic band out wide so it can be passed over the testicles and it then closes at the neck of the scrotum. It constricts blood flow so the testicles dessicate and drop off. It's a process that usually takes some weeks.

So the magnificent owner of the wandering dog apparently didn't notice his dog had dessicating balls for weeks...?

sionnaic · 16-12-2010 5:30pm

At the end of the day the poor little dog.

Left to roam unsupervised by what can only be an uncaring, feckless and clueless owner who cared so little didn't notice what had been done to his dog!! (boggles the mind)

Suffered terribly at the hands of someone who obviously doesn't give a crap about animals...I don't care what he said about how much he cares about his own dogs, no one who has an ounce of regard for animal welfare would do this to a dog.

Two ignorant, horrible, uncaring people allowed to have animals and what's the result?

A poor little dog no doubt manhandled roughly in a terrifying experience after which he was left to suffer in agony for days and then dumped by their family to places or persons unknown. Awful.

Danrua · 16-12-2010 9:15pm

If ever the old saying that "you should never believe all you read in the papers" was in doubt surely this forum has forever proved it's worth.
Due to our democratic system and the fact he pleaded guilty, the "man" who committed this terrible crime against a helpless dog was given the right to have his solicitor stand up in court and make the most outlandish allegations against the dog and his owners.
Despite refusing to take the stand and failing to produce one witness the defendant claimed himself and his neighbors were tortured by this little dog, something that has caused great disgust in this closely knit community.
All of us who were involved in this case are sickened that we have to sit and read these lies in the press, printed as if they were fact. And worse to read this stuff online by people who have no idea what really happened and the stress and trauma to the elderly couple who truly owned Rusty.
That this man claimed to leave the dog back on over twenty occasions in three years, despite the dog not being three years old at the time must surely have raised a few eyebrows? That his children were afraid of it despite the fact they were regularly seen playing with it by many of his neighbors was laughable. That this man would return a dog so many times yet fail to go to the Gardai or the relevant authorities surely suspends belief.
That the son of the elderly couple who owned Rusty took the stand and swore on the bible, despite the fact the perpetrator refused a chance to do so spoke volumes to everyone in court to hear this awful case.
That anyone who would commit a vile act like this, then try to excuse himself by ridiculing his neighbors with his litany of lies in court is bad enough, to have his lies go around the world and gain sympathy for him is a travesty of justice.
Surely those who choose to express this vitriol towards the owners of Rusty on this forum should ask themselves why the same owners were never reprimanded by the Judge, Gardai or the ISPCA in their care or attention to this much loved pet.

2

Cherry Blossom · 16-12-2010 9:45pm

Danrua wrote: »

<snip>
All of us who were involved in this case are sickened that we have to sit and read these lies in the press, printed as if they were fact. And worse to read this stuff online by people who have no idea what really happened and the stress and trauma to the elderly couple who truly owned Rusty.
<snip>

Well now you have your chance to tell your side of it, so please do

. I would be interested to hear how the defendant had access to Rusty in order to put the lambing ring on him if he was securely contained on the owners property.

As for contacting the guardi and dog warden about the dog, have you ever tried to do this in Donegal? Because I have, and it's no picnic! The issues we had were only resolved by the people eventually moving away.

Danrua · 16-12-2010 10:57pm

That you had issues contacting the authorities is a worry, the fact that Mr. Flood never even made an attempt to contact them after "allegedly" suffering for three years is a bit odd. It might have escaped your attention in this case but the dog was not even born when some of these supposed incidences took place and that the defendant could make this claim without fear of censure is surely a weakness in our justice system.
That he had access to the dog in a rural area is no surprise as it is impossible to watch a dog every minute of the day. That this mans children, most of whom are in their late teens, were known to call the dog on to their land and were very fond of it was never reported in the papers, that they were in fear of it was.
It amazes me that so many people can have access to a completely warped version of events in this so called "digital age".
That a human being would even consider doing this to a helpless animal who trusted him worries me, that so many people out there sympathizes with him scares me.

Yenwod · 16-12-2010 11:12pm

Poor dog

I just cant get my head around how people can be cruel to animals. The animal is acting on instinct and is an ANIMAL!! He's not working on our human logic and rules so to do something like that is just a idiotic way of dealing with a situation and beyone horrible and cruel

Cherry Blossom · 16-12-2010 11:17pm

It may be impossible to watch a dog every minute of the day but I live in a rural area. I own a terrier, and she is confined to my property unless she is being walked on a lead as I can't trust her recall. I don't condone what the defendant did in any way at all but I know my dog is on my property and therefore not at risk form anyone 'interfering' with her (unless they are trespassing in my garden), getting run over, being fed crap (as I have seen people do) or poisioning. If I get any allegations of her being a nuicence, I know 100% that this is not the case as she is in the house if no-one is home (after the incident with the last dog), confined in the garden for a while everyday while someone is here to check on her every so often and with me at all times I'm here.
Has Flood only made these claims to the media and not in the course of the legal proceedings?

ppink · 16-12-2010 11:22pm

Danrua wrote: »

That you had issues contacting the authorities is a worry, the fact that Mr. Flood never even made an attempt to contact them after "allegedly" suffering for three years is a bit odd. It might have escaped your attention in this case but the dog was not even born when some of these supposed incidences took place and that the defendant could make this claim without fear of censure is surely a weakness in our justice system.
That he had access to the dog in a rural area is no surprise as it is impossible to watch a dog every minute of the day. That this mans children, most of whom are in their late teens, were known to call the dog on to their land and were very fond of it was never reported in the papers, that they were in fear of it was.
It amazes me that so many people can have access to a completely warped version of events in this so called "digital age".
That a human being would even consider doing this to a helpless animal who trusted him worries me, that so many people out there sympathizes with him scares me.

Whatever about the rest of your statement this part is ridiculous in 2010. If you dont know where your dog is i.e. in his bed or secured on your property then the question should be asked as to whether you should have a dog at all.
we are totally surrounded by sheep and we have dogs who most definately would chase and kill if given half an opportunity. For the last 10+ years we have sucessfully monitored them that they never get the opportunity to chase sheep,cars,pedestrians or bother any neighbours. That is the duty of any animal owner.

Now saying that I do not one bit agree with what was done to the dog! However if he repeatedly came onto my property he would not be going back to that owner thats for sure.

Danrua · 16-12-2010 11:52pm

I never said I was the dogs owner. Maybe I never made that clear? If you had known anything about the case rather than what you read in the papers, you would have learned that this incident took place in an area heavily populated by sheep.
That the person who did this admitted to owning sheep and the many sheep farmers who populate the area never made a complaint, or had any fear of this little dog speaks volumes.
If this dog was straying so much as was alleged over three years why did no one shoot him, report him, or even make a complaint to his owners?
As I mentioned before, that this man couldn't produce a witness in court to agree with his opinion of this dog, it's danger to his children and the community and large is baffling. There are many sheep in the area and much younger children than his, yet why no other complaints? Why if it was so dangerous is there such shock and revulsion at his actions, and the attempt to claim in court these neighbors somehow gave their blessing.

ISDW · 17-12-2010 12:01am

Danrua, in your first post you say that you are involved in the case, can I please ask what your involvement is?

The thing that puzzles me, is how did the dog's owners not notice the band on the dog's testicles? As has been pointed out, they wouldn't have just dropped off immediately, it would take days or weeks.

Also, could you please tell us what happened to Rusty?

Zapperzy · 17-12-2010 2:36am

Danrua, you seem to be involved in some way so you may be able to answer just this one question, did Rusty's owners allow Rusty to wander off their property? Im not talking about him one day escaping but did they regularly allow him to wander?

sionnaic · 17-12-2010 2:38am

I know where my two dogs are at all times and that's in my house, in my secure garden, on the end of my lead or no more than 20 ft away from me running around an empty enclosed field chasing a ball. Growing up in a rural area surrounded by farms and sheep, our dog was similarly confined. The one time he got through the hedge and into the field behind our house, 2 days later my dad had the entire circumference of our half acre site fenced in chicken wire behind the hedge. He never got out again.

Dogs should not be allowed to roam. Period.

If you let your dog roam then bad people have unfettered access to him and can go to town in whatever sick way they please. So even though that fella Flood is undoubtedly a horribly cruel person who is a menace and who should be banned from any contact with dogs ever again, this whole terrible incident is still Rusty's owners' fault. They should have kept him safe.

Also I cannot understand how they did not
a) notice something was terribly wrong with their dog
And
b) if they did notice, then not bring him to a vet to get checked out

Flood might be a horrible man who is lying through his teeth but unless the owners can swear he lifted Rusty from their garden to do this to him then they are just as much at fault.

For these 3 reasons the "poor" owners are not innocent victims they are equally responsible for this poor dog's suffering.

I'd love to know how Rusty is, the poor dote...

ppink · 17-12-2010 9:58am

Danrua wrote: »

I never said I was the dogs owner. Maybe I never made that clear? If you had known anything about the case rather than what you read in the papers, you would have learned that this incident took place in an area heavily populated by sheep.
That the person who did this admitted to owning sheep and the many sheep farmers who populate the area never made a complaint, or had any fear of this little dog speaks volumes.
If this dog was straying so much as was alleged over three years why did no one shoot him, report him, or even make a complaint to his owners?
As I mentioned before, that this man couldn't produce a witness in court to agree with his opinion of this dog, it's danger to his children and the community and large is baffling. There are many sheep in the area and much younger children than his, yet why no other complaints? Why if it was so dangerous is there such shock and revulsion at his actions, and the attempt to claim in court these neighbors somehow gave their blessing.

The most important question here is Was Rusty taken from his own secure property and fitted with this lambing ring...or did he wander to someone elses property and have it done there? If one of my neighbours did that to one of my dogs without a doubt they would have to have come to my property to do that as there is no way our dogs can get out to go to theirs!
As regards the complaints...generally people do not like to complain to neighbours, they do not want to fall out. That does not mean they are happy to see somone elses choice of pet arriving to their property.

I would also wonder why Rusty was not neutered also?

Danrua · 17-12-2010 3:17pm

To all of you out there who are concerned by Rusty's wellbeing, don't.
Rusty's owner was not the man who represented him in court but his elderly parents, who are 88 and 95 years of age. Those who heaped abuse on this man as an "feckless owner" were wrong. As the perpetrator pleaded guilty this man did not need to appear at all but choose to do so to represent a little animal who could not speak for himself. Nor was he given free legal aid or allowed to stand up in court and tell totally unsubstantiated lies.
As was untruthfully reported in some papers, he never mentioned Vet's fees or indeed asked for compensation. That these fees and compensation were donated to the ISPCA was not mentioned, was the fact that they were not paid yet.
It is a scary time at present for elderly people living in rural areas and it is wrong that this elderly couple should be vilified for fearing for their dog's safety' and choosing to give him away. Rusty is now in a loving home and is the darling of four teenage girls and is brought back to visit on a regular basis.
That this couple would allow their dog to cause such stress to the good neighbors in the community over a three year period is unthinkable, and if the act itself wasn't bad enough, to stand up in court and seek to denigrate them was unforgivable. As for Rusty's "alleged" danger to children it says a lot that every neighbor who offered to take him in all had children in their homes. This was deemed unwise as he may have wandered home again.
This is a sad story with a happy ending and thats what people should remember, if their is a moral to this, it is that we should never rush to judge without the full facts. As I mentioned earlier, neither should we believe all we read in the papers.

ISDW · 17-12-2010 3:32pm

Danrua wrote: »

To all of you out there who are concerned by Rusty's wellbeing, don't.
Rusty's owner was not the man who represented him in court but his elderly parents, who are 88 and 95 years of age. Those who heaped abuse on this man as an "feckless owner" were wrong. As the perpetrator pleaded guilty this man did not need to appear at all but choose to do so to represent a little animal who could not speak for himself. Nor was he given free legal aid or allowed to stand up in court and tell totally unsubstantiated lies.
As was untruthfully reported in some papers, he never mentioned Vet's fees or indeed asked for compensation. That these fees and compensation were donated to the ISPCA was not mentioned, was the fact that they were not paid yet.
It is a scary time at present for elderly people living in rural areas and it is wrong that this elderly couple should be vilified for fearing for their dog's safety' and choosing to give him away. Rusty is now in a loving home and is the darling of four teenage girls and is brought back to visit on a regular basis.
That this couple would allow their dog to cause such stress to the good neighbors in the community over a three year period is unthinkable, and if the act itself wasn't bad enough, to stand up in court and seek to denigrate them was unforgivable. As for Rusty's "alleged" danger to children it says a lot that every neighbor who offered to take him in all had children in their homes. This was deemed unwise as he may have wandered home again.
This is a sad story with a happy ending and thats what people should remember, if their is a moral to this, it is that we should never rush to judge without the full facts. As I mentioned earlier, neither should we believe all we read in the papers.

Great that the dog's safe, but can I ask again please, how you are involved in this case. And, how come his owners didn't notice the lambing band on his testicles?

sionnaic · 17-12-2010 3:35pm

ISDW wrote: »

Great that the dog's safe, but can I ask again please, how you are involved in this case. And, how come his owners didn't notice the lambing band on his testicles?

+1 and how did Mr Flood get to Rusty to put the thing on him?

Man castrates dog

Comments