*Bartmess dogs* - Page 2

I totally agree with Molly and all she said.  I have no interest in obtaining any of these dogs.  I have enough dogs to care for and to do things with them.

Seems folks know the AKC numbers of these dogs and AKC should be able to know who were the actual owners.  People kept saying that these were important lines.  Who are the owners?

I am now thinking that these dogs are being rushed into some kind of location and snip snip and out the back door.  Of course this location is going to make money.

When I first started reading these posts, I did not bother to read Janice's posts as they were so confusing.  But I keep reading about important lines and I do not know all the working lines and how the dogs were owned by others.  Where are the others' rights to get their dogs back in an intact manner.

Repeat -- I have all the dogs I want to care for.

I think it has to do with the word: seized. Anyone who has claims on these animals would have to appeal directly to A/C in writing and yesterday, IMHO.

Of course anyone doing so will surely extend the animals' incarceration. I think what Mobjack is appealing to is a sort of decency to leave it be. Find those "important lines" some where else.

The other thing is, what kind of person would give their dog to Bart*mess for any reason whatsoever? The same kind who wouldn't care if their dog languished in a cell for a year.

IMHO

As Beetree pointed out, there is one operative word here. SEIZED
Once a dog is accepted into rescue or placed for public adoption through a humane society or SPCA , that animal is no longer eligible for registration by the AKC. We intend to ensure that any of the Bartmess dogs adopted through rescue or the shelter will in fact be altered and their papers cancelled.

Any legal owners of the Bartmess dogs have had an opportunity to claim their dogs. If a legal owner of any of the Bartmess dogs wishes to claim them, they must appear IN PERSON and provide proof of ownership to claim their animal. Once the state mandated hold time is up on those dogs, or the court releases them to the shelter for public adoption, ANY legal owners time to reclaim to those dogs is over. At that point, they must apply to adopt just like anyone else and that includes the dogs will be spayed and neutered and the papers cancelled. This applies to ANY dog in any shelter or rescue. Not just the Bartmess dogs. This is the law and we are ensuring it is being followed. We are also ensuring there will be no last minute name changes on papers to let someone claim the dogs as their own and have them end up back in the hands of Janice or her partners. Nothing more, nothing less. 

If this bothers some people, oh well. There is NOTHING so special about these particular dogs or their bloodlines that they need to be kept in the genepool.

To answer Molly's questions even though since she says she does rescue, she should already know all this. I'll post it for anyone else who wants to know.

The legal owner of any dog in a shelter has a right to reclaim that animal upon proper proof of ownership during stray hold time and may reclaim that animal intact. That is the law and why there are mandatory stray hold times on dogs before they are made available for adoption. By law, once the stray hold time is up, the animal becomes the property of the agency holding the animal. 

At that point, the owner has no more claim to the dog. Period. When rescue intakes a dog, legal ownership of that animal is transferred to the rescue. If the owner on paper appears after stray hold time is up to claim the dog, it is at the discretion of the shelter / rescue to release the dog to the owner. It is not mandated and they can legally refuse to do so. Shelters are not required to hold any animal beyond stray hold time or place it for public adoption. They may euthanize at that time and overcrowded shelters often will. There is no legal recourse for a dog being adopted out, neutered or even euthanized unless the shelter made an error in doing so. Then you can sue but all you can recover is the value of the dog. 

Tatto and microchip people, register those numbers and keep the info current. 

Some people may have been taken in by Janice recently and fallen for her scams, that might still be going on. I feel badly for anyone who might have sent her a dog not knowing what she was and what would happen. I feel badly for anyone who might be be scammed into doing a favor for someone by taking one of those dogs now.

But, the bottom line is, Janice Bartmess is well known in the DDR circle. People KNOWINGLY sent her dogs. IMO, those people are just as bad as Janice and those are the people our efforts are aimed at not anyone innocently drug into this.

Vehement discussions of Janice Bartmess have been ensuing at pdb for over a year. Any dog owner who had a dog at her place only had to know how to use a google search to find out that those dogs were in terrible hands. They should have spent the last year getting their dogs out of her "kennel." If those owners had a computer, there's no excuse. If they ever went to a GSD club or knew other GSD people, there's no excuse (everybody WITH a computer talks about it). There is NO legitimate reason some poor unsuspecting person would have a dog there and not understand the risks. Those people had dogs there because they knew all about Janice's creepy Frankenstein experiments and hoped to become beneificary to them. My disgusting ex husband used to say, "There's no such thing as a real victim" regarding con cases. Every one of the "victims" of a con had dollar signs in his/her own eyes. Greed makes you a participant in the con, not a vicitim.

There is no way any of the original owners of the Bartmess dogs should have had access to any of them, and that counts Judy Dominguez.

 Quote:
"People KNOWINGLY sent her dogs"


And how fricken sad is that........

It is beyond unbelievable.

What's sadder and even more unbelievable is that plenty of people know what Bartmess is, who has been dealing with her all these years and they turn a blind eye to it and keep their mouths shut. Bartmess and a few others could have been stopped years ago if those people would have just stepped up and spoken. But I suppose greed, money and some "elite rare bloodlines BS" takes priority over doing the right and decent thing. The dogs themselves certainly don't matter. Just who produced them and what they can produce themselves.

 Who, like Judy Malone? Kris Kristopolous? Did you expect either of them to say a word? Seriously??? Pot, kettle, anyone?

 Hopefully, if anyone was truly ignorant of her "care" she provides the dogs, their eyes have been opened and they are outraged and will NEVER enable her in any way to get another dog in her grasp.