Tammy Grimes goes on trial next week

Have you ever owned a really old dog or had a dog actually make it into the geriatric years? Looking at that video I am reminded of my old pyr, I would call or urge him to his feet and he would lay there and roll his head and put his paw in the air. Was it hard for him to get up? Sure it was. Sometimes I even had to go and pick him up to bring him inside, but if he REALLY wanted up or saw a tastey treat he would get a little bounce in his step and get his butt off the ground. He would out right refuse to get up unless it suited him...
The dog in that video was 18+ years old. He wasn't even thin for an 18 year old dog. He was bright, shiny and alert, just not interested in jumping to his feet for the entertainment of strangers. For an 18 year old dog he was in excellent condition. Some one said he was laying in his filth? He was laying on the ground, on the dirt, probably because it was soft and cool. Dogs enjoy laying in the dirt, it's a natural desire.
What I find so sad is that people are going to be forced to destroy their dogs in their old age, rather than letting them live a natural life for fear of what over-reactive, melodramadic onlookers might interperate the situation to be.
Getting old is not pretty. Just like old people old dogs don't look their best. Take a walk through a nursing home sometime to get an idea of what elderly really means. Maybe some people are ok with killing a dog when it becomes an inconvience or an unattractive blemish to an otherwise perfect yard or home (these same people probably granny dump their relatives too), but some people do take their role as a pet owner seriously and are in it for the long haul, even when they get unsightly, their hair falls out, and they soil the carpet. Yes, there is a time to euthanize a pet but that is a personal descision...

I'm sorry but you must have watched the wrong video. That dog was as wet as the ground around him. He was laying on soggy ground and it is obvious he couldn't get up.

A quote from http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/doogieletter.html.
"The vet documented his general negligent condition, low weight, sores, missing fur, and took xrays of his back and hips. He determined that he has very bad back spurs that are causing him a lot of pain and are most likely responsible for his inability to walk. He also saw an undetermined mass near his hip on the xray. He gave him a shot for pain plus some B vitamins for energy, so that perhaps he could have even one good day or a few good hours. He wrote a letter stating his condition."

When it gets to that point someone should step in. Tammy did, when no one else would. It is a gift we can give a dog, an old dog that either needs medical care or to be PTS. When I get old I don't want to live how many old people do. I don't want to have someone else wiping my butt, feeding me, all just to keep me going, even when my mind might already be gone. People however do not have the choice so the two really can't be compared.

No, getting old isn't pretty, but when you are in so much pain you can't walk enough is enough.

Here's a video after TLC and Vet care. Doesn't look like the same dog does it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SREURMgrsHE

Sure, Tammy did get publicity, and good for her!! This should be a public matter, allowing suffering from any living creature is WRONG. Let's just say for a moment what Tammy did was wrong, and that she over stepped her boundries (WBTW I don't beleive she did), maybe it will make people think twice about the conditions that they allow their animals to live in. I can understand the arguement that those of you who beleive that allowing the law to dictate how and when we can do things is getting out of hand, and I can appreciate this, HOWEVER I refuse to say just because I don't want my own animal responsibilities scrutinized that I would fight it at the risk of those animals who do need outside intervention.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say that animals are only property and that they are not the buisness of other people even if their welfare is being jeapordized? Are we suppose to turn a blind eye and say 'Oh well, not my dog so I shouldn't be concerned' ?
If you answer yes to this, where is your empathy?

Yes, this was a geriatric dog, and 18 is incredibley old for a dog of any breed, but that does not make suffering a resonable alternative to doing nothing.

Yes, I would be angry if someone called AC on me, but in the end I would be satisfied that the welfare of animals is being considered and that something is being done about it. No, we don't all have to agree on how we raise and treat our dogs, and sometimes I strongly disagree with another persons methods, but at the end of the day as long as the animal is not suffering there is not much one can do or should be able to do. In the case of this old dog, I personally believe that he was suffering let it be from old age or any other cause- and that is unexceptable.

Could it possibly be that the original owners were a little embarrassed that their responsible pet ownership skills were brought to question and that is why they fought Tammy? Because if that dog meant as much to them as they claim why would they allow it to suffer so?

Finding a universal acceptance of what is right and wrong is nearly impossible, however we should be able to set extreme limits within one's own cultures of what is right and wrong. In North American cultures abuse is wrong, and allowing something to suffer even because it is geriatric and near death because of old age is WRONG. There are other alternatives than allowing the dog to let nature take its course while lying in the dirt unable to move.

And on one last note, would those opposed to Tammy's actions still feel the same if indeed all of her claims were true, that the dog was unable to stand, laying in filth, etc? Or is it the fact that we are taking what she says at face value that bothers you so much?

As I mentioned before, from what I've seen, the problem was not so much WHAT she did, as HOW she did it. It was her attitude, which makes you feel like she had every right to confiscate the dog, make the whole thing public, and then--possbily--lie about exactly what she did and why. She had no legal right to take the dog. That doesn't mean she shouldn't have . . . I think she actually did the right thing to interfere. But her arrogance gets people's hackles up. That dog was being abused, and needed help . . . but should any passer by have the right to step into your yard and take your dog with impunity when in their opinion it is being mistreated? No. I think the whole arguement we've had here about chaining should show that. Or the case of the ACO who insisted someone put their dog down.

That's why I made my earlier post about how I would do it. I would help the dog, but I would make clear that at all times, my goal was to help the dog. Not to take it from its owners (that's a matter for the state), or to aggrandize myself (her publicity was self-aggrandizement, even if it was for good purpose). You do everything above board, take the animal to a vet and then to a shelter, and say very honestly . . . it was dying out there, there wasn't much time, so I helped it. If the owners want it back, they should deal with the shelter. After all, if they care for their dog, they should appricate the fact that I saw it dying out there and got it medical care . . . if they don't, then they should answer to the law . . . not to me. I'm a private citizen. I am not AC, or the police.

As for calling AC on me . . . if someone did, I'd be ticked. But I'd be a lot more ticked if they took it upon themselves to "rescue" my dog. Now, in this case, appearantly, AC wouldn't come and the dog really needed help . .. so you help. That's the right thing to do. But then you don't toot your own horn and say "I helped a dog! Aren't I great!" and you certainly don't run around announcing how the law should not apply to you. The law applies to you . .. if you break it out of compassion, and deal with the consequences with humility, often the judge will let you go and in my opinion, should let you go. Of you argue that you had every right to break the law, you're likely to be in trouble . . . and in my opinion, you should be.

We then agree Lilavati on this paragragh of yours. Maybe I just did not word it the way I would have liked. I have already said that I can understand why she was charged and prosecuted, even if I can totally justify why she did and agree 100% with what she did.

My point is simply where do we draw the line? We can't have our cake and eat it too. No we don't want just anyone walking into yards to remove dogs that they believe are being mistreated, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking if what Tammy claims to be true is in fact the exact scenerio that occured, was she still in the wrong?

Abuse is still abuse, and that is wrong.

And I stand by my claims to support her.

The fact that the dog did not get up for 3 days is based on the word of a neighbor. There is no video showing the dog laying in the same spot for 3 days. Is it not possible the neighbor had a grievance against the owner? I was not there, I don't know the owners nor the neighbor.

Many very elderly animals, humans included, look like a breeze could blow them over near the end.

Should the dog have been inside? Probably, it would have been nicer for the old fella if he was but it's not my call. I leave that decision up to those with the legal authority to do so.

No, I've not watched the video. My comp is old and slow, takes forever to download that stuff.

Why is the fact that older dogs look worse than young dogs supporting any cause? I don't support either side of this issue. I just like to look at things from the opposite angle than the average person. Very old dogs look like they're ready to die because they are!

Maybe the video shows more, I'll never know, but what I have noticed is that there is no thought beyond "Tammy was right" no matter what the full truth may have been. I find it sad that people refuse to at least try to see the other side.

That philosophy can lead to a lot of abuse if you don't listen to other people and assume all neighbors have a "Grudge".

I am not sure either, however it has been brought up many times. ALL dogs should have the right not to suffer.

And I find it sad that that several times I have asked those who are opposed to Tammy and what she did WHAT IF SHE DID TELL THE FULL TRUTH REGARDING THAT DOG, AND HE WAS IN NEED OF IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION---WAS SHE STILL WRONG TO DO SO???

Why is that this question goes unanswered, is it because if you answer yes she was still wrong that one would support the right to abuse animals as they see fit, or will it blow their whole theory on why it was wrong in the first place out of the water?

Where did that come from? And how does that apply to my point?

I listen to everyone, I read everything I can on a subject etc.
I assume nothing, which is contrary to what many others do.
I seek information from all the resources that I can find.
I'm a thinker. I view things from all angles and try to see all sides.



Why, because no one else will, because they are not here to defend themselves. They don't have a voice like Tammy does through the followers with blind faith. Thats why.

I thought Lilavati already had...


I agree If what Tammy said was all true. If removing the dog for immediate care was required to save it and there was no other alternative, I would put a note on the owners door and take it to the nearest vet. I would then return to the dogs home and wait to tell the owners what had happened and where their dog was. After all that was said and done, I would have made an official complaint to A/C.

I told myself that I wouldn't get back on this , but who listens to me !? Her reactions could be faulted , but her actions NO. That dog needed help and she did the best she could . I would have done the same .....no one was holding the dog down when they brought in the blanket ....the poor thing couldn't get up !

Because we haven't actually heard from the original owner. All we've heard is Tammy Grimes' side. Is the owner dead? In the hospital? Lost their job and couldn't afford the vet care? What possibly could have happened? We really don't know.

You call it blind faith, I call it compassion. She did what many of us wish we had the guts to do, and many of us apparently care too little to do. She stood up for something that literally couldn't stand up for itself. She refused to turn a blind eye and let something die in pain and forgotten.

She broke the law, sure. I would consider that, in this circumstance, a fair trade for doing what is right. JMHO.

My post wasn't directed at Lilavati, although she may think what Tammy did was wrong, she can understand why she did it. It was however directed at the others who continue to scream that Tammy was a thief, no ifs ands or buts. So thank you for taking the time to answer DryCreek.

Is it so hard to believe that maybe Tammy really thought that she was doing the right thing? Why do you immediatley assume that she is making up her story? Why is it so hard to believe that someone has true compassion for animals and couldn't stand to see the dog suffer anymore than it already had. And yes, I know you are going to come back with the whole "you don't know that the dog was suffering story...". And you are right, I don't know, but when I see those pictures of that poor dog I certainly don't get the impression that everything is alright, and I certainly don't get that impression when I viewed the you tube clip.

Sometimes we have to stop the battle of was it legally right or wrong, should legislation be in place, yadda yadda yadda, and look at one case at a time and see if morally things are ok. I think that Tammy did a wonderful thing, and am seriously blown away that people choose to immediatley act suspicious and believe the worst.

DryCreek, you yourself said it, maybe she didn't go about things the right way, and absolutley no one is claiming that she did, but her intentions were good (if one chooses to believe her side), ethical, and compassionate. I choose to believe that she was acting out of best interest, people involved in rescue hardly have the time or money to help animals they do not believe need immediate help.

So with all of this said, can we all agree that maybe her actions weren't the best, but her intentions were?

I think that's the best way to put it, Saint.

^^^^ yes ...that's my point !

Well after reading what the vet reported how can anyone say that this dog didn't need medical care... or that it is not clear it needed medical care? Sure she may not have sat there for three days but I'll bet she watched for more than a minute or two... Sure she went about it the wrong way... but it's apparant that the dog did need medical attention... I'm sick of that "he's old" excuse... I don't care if he is 8 or 18.... if a dog is in pain and needs care he should get it regardless of "old age". so yes you are right... we didn't know that the dog was suffering... until the vet took the nessecary steps to show that the dog WAS indeed suffering.

Would I be pissed if someone came into my yard and took my dog? Sure I would... but then again my dogs aren't left to their own devices out in the yard so I can safely say that wouldn't happen. I don't leave them unattended chained to anything for days... or even for hours.

Has anyone heard anything from the owners? At all? (I get the feeling they could've been dead inside the house and nobody would've even noticed in the furor to rescue the dog.)

Its my understanding that the owner has pressed charges...thus not dead or in the hospital. Can't afford vet care....pure cop out. Nearly every vet has payment plans or the local humane society has programs to help..... Putting the dog to sleep would have been better than just leaving it there to suffer; it is much more criminal than taking the dog to get it care and proper home.

Ockman's razor?!