Von Hunterhaus, 39 dogs seized - Page 6

There has been talk on another site, that the real dog owners are getting a lawyer (maybe have it already) & are going to fight this to get their dogs back.
I think those folks behind this "rescue" were hoping to pull this off with no one being any wiser to their movements until it was too late & all dogs placed/rehomed. Funny how so many of them found homes(with friends of the rescue) the same day the dogs were pulled. 
This whole mess just keeps getting stinkier as more info is found out....

POOOOOOOOR dogs, and I agree, I smell a stinky rat.

The legality of the issue, if the dogs weren't legal property of HunterHaus, even if she did sign them over to him, that's irrelevent. Kitkat and Michael10 have got that one right. It's no different than me going over to his house, and selling his stuff; then saying "well, your neighbor signed it over to me." 

It doesn't change the fact she should not have had so many dogs. That amount of refuse and cleaning-neglect in the house is not the byproduct of bringing them inside because the weather was bad. Still, Perez's actions are unlawful, and his attitudes towards the dogs' owners is a disgrace. If he truly cared about the dogs, he would -want!- them to be returned to their rightful people. My opinions of the ASPCA (and the HSUS) are not the highest, and haven't been for years. When politics and self-interest takes precidence over doing the ethical, and -lawful!- thing, it's time for a serious upheaval.

Fired, fried... I'd fully support Perez getting either one.

I have never had a dog seized by a shelter but I am sure there are a lot of laws that this shelter violated.
I have never heard of a shelter taking the "cream of the crop"  off and letting them out  to some of their friends/special donors.  I have also never heard of a shelter not allowing the true owners to take their dog back.  Shouldn't the animals be held for a court to determine ownership?
I have also never heard of a shelter not taking all the seized animals to the shelter to be evaluated.
I certainly hope the owners gather and file cease and desist orders to prevent the doling out of their dogs and the spaying of bitches, whether pregnant or not.

I smell a huge scandal and lawsuit.

 

All of this is only sad...

I only wonder why there were that many dogs? I don´t believe in "European" co-owners, doesn´t make sense - but even if it´s true - what was she supposed to do with all these dogs?
How did she want to walk, train or show all of them? Pregnant bitches...
I really don´t get it.

Was she running this kennel by herself? Or did she have help that bailed on her when it became too much for them? I have always known kennels to hire help (trainers, walkers, kennel help, etc.), so I'm just curious if anyone knew what her setup was and how she was feeding and cleaning the kennels before it got so bad? They even admitted there were bags of empty kibble bags, it doesn't mean she didn't have food for them! It could simply mean she got finished just feeding them and the bags were empty. Same thing for the water bowls, why do people assume you always have to have dog food and water in the bowls 24/7? This makes me shake my head in disbelief!

The below I want everyone to think about, with stuff going on here in America and elsewhere, the last couple of sentences are very important to consider and I hope Perez and Charlene, realizes the mistakes they are making.

Since owners are coming up from other countries, this would actually, be an issue that can be taken up with the federal courts, since this SPCA is you could say committing fraud and illegal activity! These owners have proof, they are out of the country; not legal residents, but have proof of ownership; their rights are still protected because they are loosing their property! So I say, they need to take this to the federal courts here in America AND their federal court system, and bring this to the attention of higher ups in both countries. I only say this because think about it people, this makes America look really really bad in the eyes of other countries. Would you trust your dog to someone here now, if this SPCA is able to get away with this? I'm thinking on the standpoint of what other countries already think of America, and I'm cringing thinking of what this could mean for those who wish to do business with these kennels and others in the future. The GSD world is watching and the outcome is very important for everyone.

I dont care what other countries think, I'm more worried about this for my own sake. They should not have that power.

Maybe it is just me, but when any body starts stacking German Shepherds one on top of each other, I don't care what country they came from. The person doing it needs to stop.

The 39 dogs had to be moved out of the conditions they were in to better conditions almost immediately during a NY winter that has been brutal.  Finding kennel space for 39 dogs immediately is no small feat and I am sure those doing the job had only a few options.  They could have scattered the dogs out to other shelters and that would have been even worse than what they did which was call on locals ( from what I have read thus far ) to house the dogs.  Not many people have facilities for 6 or 7 dogs on no notice unless they are in the business .. no surprise there.  Many of the dogs went to people who the SPCA and the police counted as friendly .. also no surprise.  Not many people would or could house 6 new dogs on no notice and why would they take new dogs into their facility with the risks that entails both health wise and legal.  I am not surprised that those housing the dogs after they were rescued from what was surely poor conditions at best are not happy to welcome everyone who wants to claim a dog as theirs into their kennel or homes to view the animals.  For a whole bunch of reasons most breeders and trainers do not welcome visitors into their facilities.  The legaality of what the SPCA and the police did will be determined and that may take months so in the meantime the people who took in the 39 dogs are stuck with house guests that may or may not stay and may or may not pay for their room, board, care, vet bills, and daily exercise in brutal winter conditions.  I have a hard time seeing a winner in any of this scenario for anyone involved but most of all the dogs are going to lose one way or another.  I'm pretty sure a lot of people with good intentions or perhaps even some with bad intentions are going to wish they had never seen these 39 dogs or had anything to do with them.   It seems to me most likely that under the circumstances at the time everyone was doing the best they could including the owner, police, and shelter/SPCA people involved but it is likely that the details of the ownership or legal rights of the owners was secondary to getting the dogs into better living conditions and a more controlled situation where they could not be as easily harmed.

I found this while trying to find any updates to this case, this is what is making me question an earlier statement in the other article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/suspected-breeder-arrested-dozens-of-dogs-seized-new-york

Verdeschi refused to voluntarily surrender the dogs so the authorities seized them; the dogs are now being held at the Columbia-Greene Humane Society.

IF that is the case, why is the other article saying she signed them over?