German Shepherd Dog > GSD breeder arrested in CT (119 replies)
by Fenrir on 05 December 2011 - 15:56
|I don't think people are defending the breeder here, and that is not the point most are making. The point being made that I see at least is that AC is getting more and more bold, and PETA is starting to win over hearts and minds. I am told CONSTANTLY my bitch is too skinny, funny thing is I take her to the vet and he tells ms "it is just too bad more people don't keep their dogs skinny and in shape like you do. Dogs are wolves and they are ment to be skinny and muscular." then tells me she is the most beautiful shepherd he has ever seen.|
Most comments I read have stated pretty much they are not sure of the exact case however are concerned with how not only good dog owners but excellent dog owners who spend 15hours plus training their dogs a week are being painted as evil dog abusers. Also this is NOTHING like the AKC judge who actually had dogs put down, this could very well be abuse however no dogs are being put down so the two cannot be compared in the least.
by beetree on 05 December 2011 - 16:20
|They said dogs in crates were sitting at the side of the door when it was opened. The A/C would have to be blind, and probably deaf, too. And no sense of smell.|
by beetree on 05 December 2011 - 17:24
|The point here is this case has zippo, zero, nada, absolutely nothing to do with PETA.|
Stratford A/C, a part of the Police Dept., is doing their job and because of it, thirteen German Shepherds lives have just been vastly improved. Stratford also has a memorial for their recently departed K9 Officer, Zak. I think they know what a healthy GSD needs, and what one looks like.
by Fenrir on 05 December 2011 - 17:40
|I do not think PETA has anything to do with the OP either...The conversation veered from there because it struck many peoples legit concern over the changing mentallity of what dog abuse consists of. I have no familiarity with the actual case in question, if this lady abused these dogs then I am very happy that the proper people got involved and that these dogs are now safe and in good hands. If she had her day in court and lost then that is it. I hope all the dogs involved find good homes where they can live happy lives.|
by workingdogz on 05 December 2011 - 18:28
|Google Earth search of the address that DM lists on the OG New England SchH Club contact shows a normal looking residential neighborhood.|
Not a commercial property, a residential surrounded by other similar homes.
by beetree on 05 December 2011 - 19:10
The link above provides DM's bio.... seems she thinks she's doing schutzhund! So Mystere, what do you make of that? hhhhhhmmmmm?
Clicking on the link to breeders also lists her kennel. But clicking the link just leads to her disabled site.
Workingdogz, yes West Broad Street is very much a residential area on a busy main street between two highways. It has lovely homes, with smaller yards, with sidewalks, something unheard of compared to the acre zoning in smaller towns. Certainly not an area that would be zoned for a kennel. Could that be why she got arrested because she wasn't supposed to be operating a kennel and didn't have the proper licenses? Could that be why she thought she'd just kennel 13 GSD's inside the home, hoping no one would notice?
I'm sure the neighbor's got sick of dealing with her running a kennel illegally, and now she is stopped for the time being. The fine however will be small and I'm sure it won't take long for her to set up somewhere's else.
by Dog1 on 05 December 2011 - 19:18
|I'm trying to see in the local code where AC has a right to take the dogs. I'm more concerned about the rights of pet owners in general than the person involved. There is also a cure peroid stipulated in the code. Was that ever provided or did AC just take the dogs? My question is do the Authorities follow the rules or is there a trend to do what seems to be right at the moment?|
by Blitzen on 05 December 2011 - 19:58
|Don't spend your last buck betting that there aren't some AR people behind DM's bust.|
The point is not whether she's gulity of animal cruelty or not. Her history makes most of us think - here we go again. The concerns must be was this a legal search and seizure and what is going to happen to the dogs per CT law. Most states require that dogs confiscated in abuse cases are held until the case is adjudicated or until the owner relinquishes ownership. Normally the owner is ordered to pay all expenses but that can fall back on the state/county depending on whether or not the owner can pay.
Until there is a conviction, these dogs are evidence and still DM's property. Also to consider, does DM own all these dogs or are some there for boarding as was the "stolen dog"?
This is a 2 edged sword. We want all dogs to be safe and not abused while, at the same time, preserving our own civil rights and our right to own and breed dogs. I think dog breeders had better start to go above and beyond to present themselves more as legitimate dog lovers and less as dog exploiters. Perception is reality.
by beetree on 05 December 2011 - 20:01
(Remember, these are State Statutes, I don't know the particulars for the town.)
When she opened the door of her own house to the A/C officers, it was all over for her. She couldn't hide the dogs in the crates at the entrance, she couldn't hide the smell, their condition and the numbers. She couldn't hide the noise of the other dogs stacked in the other rooms. Clearly she couldn't hide all that from her neighbors, either, who would prompt A/C to visit. If she's on probation she'd kind of have to open the door to the officer, is my thought. Why doesn't what she did seem odd in the least, to all German Shepherd Dog lover's on this thread?
This is not the situation of a simple pet owner afraid A/C is going to yank their dog from their loving arms, for no good reason. So I wonder why so many keep trying to downplay DM's arrest for what it is. It's like if there isn't a dead dog, why bother to give a damn.
Clearly people who want to get her off the hook will say all the dogs are her house pets, when that isn't true. She's a breeder who legally shouldn't be. Again, she'll get at most a $1000 fine and be done with it, that's the saddest part. Getting the dogs back, intact, might be tougher, I suppose....but I bet there will be plenty of conniving to go around when/ if it comes to that.
by Slamdunc on 05 December 2011 - 20:11
|Amazing! Thanks Bee, barkroz, workingdogz and Mystere amongst others who gave rational, intelligent responses. I find some of the posters to be more worried about themselves than the animals in this case. The whole "you" (but I really mean "I") could be next argument. In our city, AC is part of the Police Dept. I have never seen them target a breeder or go after a breeder with the exception of Michael Vick and a couple of other dog fighting rings. Targeting legit breeders who care for their animals is not on their list of things to do. Between this thread and the AKC judge thread the views of some breeders / posters are very enlightening.|
by Ninja181 on 05 December 2011 - 22:06
|This event took place on Oct 26th.|
I wonder if she has already been to court?
by Blitzen on 05 December 2011 - 22:10
|Does anyone know if the dogs were all owned by DM? Where are they now?|
If she is convicted, these dogs are going to be looking for homes. They will probably be neutered before they are released. Normally other owners of the same breed or breed-specific rescues get together and help rehome dogs that are involved in abuse cases. Right now some of us (another breed) are peripheraly involved with a bust of over 170 dogs. These dogs are currently in the possession of the local humane society. They have received a lot of donations, but it costs 11K per month to feed and care for them and it could continue for many months. Some of the dogs have been relinquished by the owner, so the immediate issue is finding homes for around 70.
GSD people in CT might want to talk about what they can do if these dogs are not returned to DM which may well happened. This is certainly not the same volume as the rescue I mentioned above, but there will be a need for donations for food, treats, toys, and qualified people ready to rehome these dogs if it becomes necessary. I imagine most of DM's dogs are related to other breeders' dogs in the area so they may want to get involved.
by JakodaCD OA on 05 December 2011 - 23:04
|I live in CT, am not active anymore in the GSD scene here , but I'm sure the word went out the minute she was arrested. |
I have lived here my entire life, am pretty close with my local AC, let me tell you, it takes ALOT for AC in most towns to even go and check out a complaint. And it seems to take a REAL LOT for them to go in and do something, so when they do, I am one who believes they have really good reasons for doing what they do. Now I don't know about other states, and do know that there are probably AC's out there that jump the gun, their status gives them an ego but I have found here, the AC's are more than willing to work with a person , the last thing they want is more animals in shelters which also here most are in dire need of everything you can think of.. More space, more help, donations.
I don't know DM personally, I know she's had problems in the past, she breeds/bred AM show lines, and now is President of a Schutzhund club here.
I am one who doesn't care about anyones civil rights if their animals need help they need help. Just MHO
by Blitzen on 05 December 2011 - 23:37
|The reason I mentioned a violation of civil rights is because, if proven, it will get the case thrown out of court and the perp will walk and get the dogs back to do more of the same. I don't give a damn about DM's civil rights. |
That is exactly what we are dealing with right now with the above mentioned confiscation of 170+ dogs. Some dog people are actually trying to get the evidence thrown out saying his civil rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure. They have retained an expert witness. Why? Because the HSUS was involved and they detest those people. I am not an HSUS lover either, but I'll be damned if I want to see this guy get out of felony charges of dog abuse, get his dogs back, and do it all over again which he will.
I truly hope AC and the PD did it right.
by Dog1 on 06 December 2011 - 02:14
|OK, We have a consensus. She's been arrested before and that makes her guilty. She's simply guilty now as she was before and there's no need to discuss it anymore. Once guilty, always guilty. Consider the matter done.|
Let's move on to how the situation was handled. To copy some justification posted above;
he may issue such orders as he deems necessary for the correction of such conditions
OK, so the Commissioner can do whatever they feel is necessary and confiscate your personal property. Is that what you think it says?
Just copying a small portion of the code does not necessarily convey the meaning of the code. Here's what it says.
'...such kennel is not being maintained in good repair and in a sanitary and humane manner or if the commissioner finds that communicable or infectious disease or other unsatisfactory conditions exist in the kennel, he may issue such orders as he deems necessary for the correction of such conditions and may quarantine the premises and animals. If the owner or keeper of such kennel fails to comply with such orders, the commissioner shall revoke or suspend the kennel license of such owner or keeper.'
So, the commissioner has the authority to correct the conditions, not take your dogs. If the commissioner is not satisfied with the conditions, the Commissioner can quarantine the premises or animals. Quarantine is isolate not Confiscate. If the owner does not comply The Commissioner shall Revoke the license. Revoke the license is not Confiscate.
So my question is; and what this discussion is now about. Did Animal Control have the right to do what it did? Is AC overstepping their authority? I think if you held them accountable to the letter of the law,,,unless someone can show me where the code gives AC the authority to confiscate someone's personal property, whether you think what they did was morally right or not, they were clearly outside the law.
That's what is scary about this situation.
by alboe2009 on 06 December 2011 - 03:34
|I love these heated discussions, (being facetious), What I see a lot of times, and I'm not siding up for the DM person, or the AC Officers, or even the majority of commentors, one side or the other. It's nice to sit back and scrutinize or dissect a person's career or duty or the decisions one made in that career or doing that duty. Abuse/over stepping.......Not saying it doesn't happen.......somewhere. One moment we have a ? topic, situation or incident then the next it's breaking off here then there and then we are on something else. AC "overstepping" their authority? Maybe it's just me but some individuals truly enjoy the line of work they are in and aspire to do the best that they can doing that job. When I hear things along this line I ask people what they do for a living? Then I ask for how long? Then I ask if they would like/love if numerous people questioned their work ethics? Or how they do their job? Or questioned their decisions?|
The poster that said it could happen to any of us. True. But if your T's are crossed, your I's are dotted and your ducks all in order than the chance of this happening is less likely. I stated in a different thread, these individuals with authority are just like anyone else. Go talk to them, get answers first hand. It's not against the law to go down to the station or office and just talk to these people! I have no clue who this DM is? Being guilty in a previous case doesn't automatically make her guilty in this one. And I'm not saying she is innocent! Let the individuals do their jobs. It falls on them. If someone screws up the case then it's on that person. And if anyone has helpful or hurtful information then do your duty and step forward. Just think if you, your parents, your sons or daughters do a job and all you hear from whoever/the public is that they abuse their authority, overstep their boundaries or race into the unknown person's house and take their animals.................... Come on! We all know some people work the loop holes, work the system. That's life! For someone ? complaining of the Commissioner's power/authority? The residents put him there. They definitely should know his powers and authority.
by Brandoggy on 06 December 2011 - 03:55
|Court is Dec. 14|
by momma on 06 December 2011 - 05:13
haven't you been in breeding dealings with this person? Questions that come to my mind that you failed to mention in your post was: Was this breeder a registered Kennel within her town? Were her dogs lisenced in her town? Did she adhere to the local zoning regulations? And were the dogs vaccinated, fed and maintained? And might I add that any vet should be able to determin the difference between "healthy" and sickly. I personally would not attack the people assigned to "protect" the dogs when the human aspect of it fails. The dogs cannot dial 911 but this seems to be a case that needed someone to respond to look out for them.
by Dog1 on 06 December 2011 - 06:54
I don't think the licensing part was mentioned. Who knows? It does not appear to be a factor. The article went into enough detail to mention nail length. I would think if the kennel was unlicensed, that would have been mentioned too. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion the license was in place. I think we can all agree no one wants to see animals mistreated. Let's get that behind us too. Take out the owner, the prior history, the license and take a look at the situation as reported and the actions that were taken.
Let's consider this some unknown person, maybe you, me, or anyone reading this and examine the information as it appears. The information is a news report with police statements and the state code. No more, no less for the sake of discussion.
Here are the facts as presented. Accurate or inaccurate let's just roll with them for sake of discussion leaving out all the other details that may relate but obscure the issue.
In this country we have elected officials that are empowered to make the laws. Many good people have sacrificed and died to allow this process to continue. We see everyday rights being taken away for various reasons. Maybe that's just the way it is but it isn't that way by design is it? That's the acid test here. Are the rights of individuals being overtaken by others overstepping their authority?
Those that enforce the law are not elected officials. They are hired to perform a public service.
Here are the details:
more than 12 dogs in the house
12 in crates
1 loose in the house
House smelled of feces and urine
Crates had no bedding
Crates had water pails and dishes but there was no water in them
One dog appeared very thin
One dog had thinning hair and long nails
Police reported all in poor condition
This is all the evidence provided. If anyone can add to the list of what the police statement was, please do.
Here's what the law says:
(b) The commissioner, the Chief Animal Control Officer or any state animal control officer may at any time inspect any kennel including all facilities of any kennel in which dogs are bred or housed or cause it to be inspected by a Connecticut licensed veterinarian appointed by the commissioner. If, in the judgment of the commissioner, such kennel is not being maintained in good repair and in a sanitary and humane manner or if the commissioner finds that communicable or infectious disease or other unsatisfactory conditions exist in the kennel, he may issue such orders as he deems necessary for the correction of such conditions and may quarantine the premises and animals. If the owner or keeper of such kennel fails to comply with such orders, the commissioner shall revoke or suspend the kennel license of such owner or keeper.
(e) Any owner or keeper of a kennel who breeds more than two litters of dogs annually and (1) fails to apply for a kennel license as required in subsection (a) of this section, or (2) fails to allow an inspection of such facility as required in subsection (b) of this section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
by hexe on 06 December 2011 - 06:55
|Remember Nitro the Rottie? Remember Hessel? Who spoke for them, when they were in the hands of 'experienced' dog owners, before they were dead? Which is why I firmly believe that of the two options--operating on the premise that the [owner/parent/caretaker/coach/priest] certainly *must* be doing right by the [animal/child/disabled/elder] in their care, because most people DO exactly that, versus coming from a place of suspicion as soon as there's an allegation/complaint against them--we *must* err on the side that protects the party with the lesser power in the relationship.|
Yes, that does mean that there will be people who are falsely accused, and some of those may not be able to mount a defense that's sufficient to remove the taint that the charges placed upon them...which is tragic, of that there is no doubt. But it remains far less tragic than animals starving to death in kennels, or children being raped by 'mentors', or neglected senior citizens dying in their own bodily wastes, malnourished and hypo- or hyper-thermic as befits the time of year.