The man was fined for an animal protection crime.
The owner thought Beck was playful, even though it had old age ailments. In reality, the dog suffered from many serious ailments. Trial file
A man from Pirkanmaa neglected the care of his dog named Beck and did not take the animal to be euthanized within the deadline, even though the control veterinarian ordered so. The elderly dog suffered from serious ailments.
The 15-year-old dog was toothless and had an ulcerated tumor in his stomach. Both ailments made it difficult to eat. The dog was very thin.
Both of the dog’s eyes were cloudy. According to the prosecutor, the dog was at least partially blind.
Its trachea was flattened, making breathing difficult.
In addition, the dog had degenerative changes in various organs that affected the animal’s movement. When walking, the dog’s back end was constantly giving up and its hind legs were very stiff.
The dog was taken
An animal protection inspection was carried out at the man’s place at the beginning of August 2023. The dog should have been taken for examinations already for treatment and earlier, but the owner did not consider it necessary.
At the end of the inspection, the man received an order to take his dog to be euthanized within five days. After the deadline expired, another inspection was conducted at the man’s place. The dog was in the same condition as in the previous inspection.
In the end, the dog was taken from the man under the Animal Protection Act and taken to the municipal veterinarian to be euthanized.
Grossly careless
The man denied that he had left his dog without the necessary care. He said he didn’t know about the tumor or the flattening of the trachea.
The man described his dog as playful, even though it was 15 years old and had ailments due to old age.
According to the district court of Pirkanmaa, the man caused the dog unnecessary suffering, but not intentionally but with gross negligence.
The district court sentenced the man to a 30-day fine for the animal protection crime, of which he had to pay 210 euros.
No ban on keeping animals
The prosecutor demanded that the man be banned from keeping animals for at least a year. According to the prosecutor, the ban should at least apply to dogs.
The district court rejected the claim because the man’s behavior was not intentional and did not last for a considerable time. In the judgment, the duration of the act is marked from July 1 to August 9.
The judgment is not binding.
#owner #thought #Beck #playful #dog #reality
