Does it qualify as animal neglect (and can you be penalized) if you leave your dogs rotting teeth untreated?

[tatumlovesgod]

I am paying for my grandma’s dog’s tooth extractions 39/42 teeth had to be removed - and the remaining three teeth also need to be removed but due to the time on anesthesia and the complexity of the three remaining, they weren’t able to get them all out.

My grandma’s power of attorney (my aunt) refused to pay for the dogs teeth as she said “if grandma was not in her right mind, she wouldn’t have wanted to pay for this”. I think that’s a bogus statement because although my grandma was cheap, she loved that dog and she has $2 million to spare (not including her house and the 80K she makes on interest every year).

I’m okay with paying as I feel a sense of ownership for my grandma and my grandma’s dog. However, I want to let my aunty know what her legal obligation was - in a way that is direct, factual, blunt, and somewhat threatening. I want to let her know how she failed from a factual perspective and not an emotional “what I think is ethical” perspective.

Upon looking online it seems as though dental work may or may not be something easily considered neglect. I’m pretty sure that this purposeful negligence, and is against my regional law, buts it’s hard to tell. And even if the law exists, is it actually commonly enforced in cases where a dog had been suffering with a rotten teeth for years? Or is it more unforced for blatant animal abuse.

Anyways, below are some pieces of my regional animal protection act. What do you guys think?

Animal care duties
2.1
A person who owns or is in charge of an animal
(a) must ensure that the animal has adequate food and water,
(b) must provide the animal with adequate care when the animal is wounded or ill,
(c) must provide the animal with reasonable protection from injurious heat or cold, and
(d) must provide the animal with adequate shelter, ventilation and space.

Duty to provide care
5(1) An officer who takes custody of an animal pursuant to section 3(1) or 4.1(2) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the animal is provided with transportation, food, water, care, shelter and veterinary treatment, if necessary.
(2) Repealed 2005 c22.
(3) A humane society to which or a caretaker to whom an animal is delivered under section 3(2) or 4.1(3) may, in accordance with the tariff provided for in the regulations, recover any expenses incurred in respect of the animal from the owner of the animal and may require the owner to pay those expenses before the animal is returned to the owner.

Offence
12(1) A person who contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $20 000.
(2) If the owner of an animal is found guilty of an offence under section 2, the Court may make an order restraining the owner from
8

Section 13
ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT Chapter A-41
continuing to have custody of an animal for a period of time specified by the Court.
(3) The Court may make an order under subsection (2) on any terms and conditions it considers appropriate.

—
Edit: I’m okay with paying as I feel a sense of ownership for my grandma and my grandma’s dog. However, I want to let my aunty know what her legal obligation was and is in a way that is direct, factual, blunt, and somewhat threatening. I want to let her know how she failed from a factual perspective and not an emotional “what I think is ethical” perspective.

 

[edman84]

@tatumlovesgod I would say yes if you are aware of the state of their teeth and refuse to do anything about it.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

@tatumlovesgod Also a yes from me. Dental problems can be very severe and infection can spread to the blood stream and other parts of the body if left untreated. (In some cases it can actually kill you.) Knowing about the condition of the dog’s teeth and not even trying to do anything about it is absolutely neglect. It looks like your local ordinances include veterinary care, so you definitely have a factual stance to take.

 

[jesusforall]

@katholischen_miliz This! That can cause sepsis and be an extremely painful death for the dog. Seems like someone just wants to keep 'their' eventual inheritance money. People do weird things when it comes to these situations.

 

[vikinglutheran]

@tatumlovesgod Grandma would definitely pay for the teeth and the dogs health and everyone knows it. Pay for it and tell grandma to pay you back.
Fuck that greedy bully. Jesus people like that make me mad. That is grandmas money. Very few things make her happier than the dog. What does grandma say?

 

[alwaysanxious]

@tatumlovesgod I think the answer to the question is yes

 

[gloriainexcelsisdeo]

@tatumlovesgod It's not a crime in reality, but it is neglect, most people are just unaware that dogs need their teeth taken care of. These dogs have been so domesticated, they litteraly rely on us for their health. Bad teeth just like us can lead to different diseases or ailments. Your not being wrong but a old old dog might be high risk for anesthesia but if you willing to do it for pets health, worth the risk.

 

[tatumlovesgod]

@gloriainexcelsisdeo Everyone was aware that all of his teeth were rotten. You could see the black decay when he opened his mouth, you could smell the rot, and he would occasionally foam from the mouth as a result.

I also spoke to power of attorney years ago about this issue, the power of attorney agreed with me - but did not want to take any action to remedy the situation as “grandma would not have wanted to pay for this if she was in her right mind”

 

[gloriainexcelsisdeo]

@tatumlovesgod Understandable, but most people don't even think about it, it's more that they uneducated on the subject as apposed to neglect , that's what I see. But ya if your dog has black teeth your probably not doing him justice.