Animal Laws and Rights - Page 7

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

kitkat3478

by kitkat3478 on 24 July 2017 - 16:07

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/doberman_pinscher/community.read?post=775115-von-hunterhaus-39-dogs-seized&p=3

Its the same thing they did in NYin 2014

Because these were special show dogs they sent them out unneutered starting the very next day
I still stand firm they have no right to request Randy sign his dogs a way BEFORE he found guilty
It seems those that rehome dogs like they are property only are the biggest supporter s of this violation of Randi right's.
If guilt is not a requirement to force anyone to surrender their animals this could be anyone NEXT.
And those that have not seen these horrible conditions should refrain from stating where the dogs are better off being
I have seen more than one rescue or rescuer do great disservice to the animals they saved

kitkat3478

by kitkat3478 on 24 July 2017 - 16:07

Another thing about this dog that was eaten Randi was out of town when did this dog supposedly die?
I know if I was being paid to watch and care for some ones animals
I most certainly would have removed a dead dog and not allowed the other dogs to eat it. And if there was no dog food when they arrived ,the caretakers, and I use the term loosely, how many days did they leave the dogs with no food?
Just. Makes little sense

by SitasMom on 25 July 2017 - 00:07

A local woman who breeds Dobermans sent to of her dogs for training, the animal control came and took the dogs. She spent over $100k to get her two dogs back. She was had to go to court several times, each time the courtroom was filled with PITA types. Most of us don't have that kind of money.

Randy managed to convince the County to let the Co-owners contact the humane society and if they qualify, have their dogs returned to them. IMO- that is huge, both on Randy's part and on the County's part. I'm not sure what the requirements are to qualify.


by beetree on 25 July 2017 - 03:07

PITA types. Oh, yes, they never know when to just shut up.

by hexe on 25 July 2017 - 04:07

It will be interesting to see what hoops the co-owners will be made to jump through in order to 'qualify' to reclaim their dogs.

by JonRob on 25 July 2017 - 04:07

"How many people actually have the financial resources to pursue cases in court, nevermind appeals to a higher court if necessary?"

Good point Koots. But with a really good case, crowdfunding could easily raise the financial resources needed.

by JonRob on 25 July 2017 - 06:07

OK, for the legal eagles here, here is an article about a recent Supreme Court case that convinces my lawyer friend that the higher courts would seriously trash a government's forcing an owner to permanently give up his dogs when he has not been found guilty of neglect or cruelty.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilty-until-proven-innocent-says-states-cannot-keep-money-from-the-innocent/#933bd4a71f6f

For the over-the-top legal eagles, here is the Supreme Court's opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf

As my lawyer friend pointed out, dogs are more than property since they have to be protected from neglect or abuse. But this can be done if there appears to be a risk of harm to the dogs by taking the dogs into temporary custody. There is no basis in law or common sense for demanding that the owner pay an outrageous sum of money (or any money at all) and making him permanently lose his right to get his dogs back if he does not or cannot pay up--all before he has gone to trial on the cruelty charges, which he might be found innocent of.

Here's the analogy my lawyer friend used. You have a child who you have taken good care of. You go on a trip and leave your child with a trusted caretaker who turns out--unknown to you--to be a sadistic thug who beats the crap out of your child. The caretaker then calls a government agency and claims that you beat your child up. The government agents show up, see the bruises, believe the caretaker and not you, snatch the child and dump him in the foster care system, and charge you with child abuse. Can you imagine the uproar if the government demanded that you pay a huge sum of money every month, supposedly to reimburse the government for your child's care, and you permanently lost your right to get your child back because you could not afford to pay up--and all of this before you have gone to trial on the abuse charges, which you might be found innocent of.

Of course, dogs are not children but they are not just property either. But my lawyer friend thinks it is the dog's status as property that will be the winning argument in the higher courts. Especially since there is no need to permanently deprive the dog's owner of his property in order to protect the dog.


by JonRob on 25 July 2017 - 16:07

"Randy managed to convince the County to let the Co-owners contact the humane society and if they qualify, have their dogs returned to them. IMO- that is huge, both on Randy's part and on the County's part. I'm not sure what the requirements are to qualify."

Yeah I guess it is "huge" when bozos start to grow a brain. Maybe it finally occurred to someone that they and the government and the "humane" society could all get their asses sued off for unlawfully depriving the co-owners of their property. If the co-owners band together, they will have plenty of money for multiple lawsuits.

"Qualify"? WTH? How about you're qualified because the dog belongs to you, you're not charged with anything, and therefore they have to give your dog back to you immediately.

My guess is that they will demand that the co-owners agree to have the "humane" society neuter their dogs. For dogs that are valuable for breeding, this would substantially reduce the value of the co-owners' property. Lawsuit City.

I have never bred dogs and I never will. And my dogs are spayed/neutered. And I encourage my clients and anyone else who will listen to spay/neuter their pet dogs at an appropriate age. But folks do have a right to breed their dogs even when I wish some of them would not.


Mystere

by Mystere on 27 July 2017 - 23:07

Not sure, but my guess would be that the "qualification" would relate to proof of an ownership interest, and not living in the immediate area. Curious, so I intend to contact the prosecutor in the case to find out. I will let you know what I learn.

by SitasMom on 28 July 2017 - 15:07

This one is very fishy.... ... Someone posted on social media, kennel was visited 4 time in 12 days, everything was fine, then 4 dogs die?

 

ALAMANCE COUNTY, N.C. -- Animal control has seized 18 dogs from a breeding facility in Alamance County after four dogs were found dead this weekend.

Several call and posts on social media sparked an investigation into possible animal neglect or abuse at a German and Dutch Shepherd breeding facility in Alamance County.

Sheriff's officials showed up at Brewers Kennel on Union Ridge Road multiple times over two weeks and they didn't find anything wrong.

"The problem is, when we were getting this information, [it] was coming to us off of social media and stuff like that, we go out there, and we find better food than you feed your family," said Randy Jones, the public information officer for the Alamance County Sheriff's Office.

Posts on social media indicated awful conditions at Brewers Kennel, such as dehydration, heat stroke and the dogs eating only raw meat.

"Well some of that stuff on Facebook was saying, 'Well the dogs were standing in their own urine and feces,'" Jones said. "Do you see anything?"

What investigators found on their first of four unannounced visits was much different.

"High quality food provided on the premises, everything's being done in a proper manner there," Jones said. "We found absolutely no issues whatsoever."

But on Saturday, deputies and animal control officers responded to another complaint. According to a press release, this was the only time investigators found evidence of "possible animal neglect."

Sheriff's officials found four dead dogs and they say all the dogs appeared to have died within in a short time of each other.

Sheriff's officials say they also have no idea what happened. The dogs didn't show signs of abuse, neglect, trauma or emaciation.

The four dogs were sent to Raleigh for canine autopsies and the criminal investigation can't move forward until the autopsies show how they died.

"We need to do this in order to have the prosecution," Jones said. "We can't go forward until we have some idea of what did or did not."

Jones said whether the dog's owner will face charges depends on the nature of their deaths.

Until the investigation wraps up, several of the remaining 18 dogs will be housed at Burlington Animal Services. A few are being kept at veterinarians and private shelter across the county.

FOX8 was not allowed to see the dogs at BAS because the investigation is still active.

But bringing in these dogs is putting a strain on the already overcrowded animal shelter.

"We're bursting at the seams," Animal Services Director Jessica Arias said.

They're in desperate need of families to adopt or foster large dogs. The shelter is so full, they had to set up temporary kennels in spare rooms across the facility.

"Being in crates is not an ideal long-term situation for a dog," Arias said.

Shelter officials say the best way to help the dogs waiting on the investigation is to help the dogs who've been waiting in a shelter for months.

"They can give you love beyond compare," Arias said. "It's a special, unique relationship to have with a dog."

The shelter is waiving its $90 adoption fee for all dogs through the end of July.

http://myfox8.com/2017/07/24/18-dogs-seized-from-breeding-facility-in-alamance-county/






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top