GSD breeder arrested in CT - Page 7

Hexe,

Are any of these dogs dead? Is it fair to use examples that do not apply and justify the misuse of authority?

Would it not be more appropriate in this example to investigate the complaint before 6 weeks have passed? Would it not have been more appropriate to do an inspection of the facility and if there appeared to be animals in poor health have a licensed vet investigate and document the condition of each dog as the law allows? Would it not have been more appropriate if AC found unsatisfactory conditions/animals to allow the owner an opportunty to correct the conditions as the law prescribes?

Why does AC have to step outside the law without first adhearing to it?

Ok, I just read the article for the first time. And this is what I'm getting out of it. Animal Control is not even in the picture. Numerous complaints, and with these complaints the time frame to put facts together to get a search warrant. The facts had to be compelling enough for the Judge to grant the warrant. Warrant served by police and by what the police observed, not just one person but the Officers present, serving this warrant. The police have the right to seize the animals due to either the wording in the warrant or the condition they, the police deem the animals to be in. (Can't jump back to original article without loosing what I have typed)

Of course we are only reading what the journalist typed and he/she could be biased/ non partial. Who knows? Key facts could've been left out unintentionally or intentionally? I, with my experience, would think if a law enforcement agency was serving a warrant, and mind you we do not know what type of warrant,  but if an agency was serving a warrant one, to a well known breeder of GSDs or two, to any individual with multiple dogs that a K9 officer would either be part of the team serving or at least on of the officers assisting. That officer would/could be crucial in describing the conditions of the dogs in question. But that is just my opinion.   

Ok, went back and reread. The warrant was a "search warrant". The wording or articulation of information in the warrant tells/or orders the officers to take a certain type of action(s). Now if other things are present or take place other actions can happen. But we'll stay on one subject for now. Whatever complaints "compiled" within that timeframe were enough for the Judge to grant the warrant. The articualtion within that warrant instructed what the officers could/should/would do. Animal Control was not involved.  That's how I am reading it.

Dog1, to the best of my knowledge, no dogs are dead in this instance.  In fact, regardless of any previous acts by this particular individual, I'll even go so far as to say that things probably are nowhere near that condition.  But I believe it IS fair to mention those examples, because at one point in time those dogs weren't dead, either, and intervention at that point would possibly have prevented their deaths. 

I stand by my statement: If an error is to be made, better it be made in favor of protecting the more powerless parties in the relationship.  I would rather an investigation reveal that concerns were unfounded, than see such an effort deferred until it was too late to be of any benefit to the ones at risk. 

Dog1,
You should try to remove your personal/professional relationship with this breeder from the equation.
You owned/co-owned the sire to the first dog she had publicized legal issues with, "Drago".
You have bred your males to her bitches, more than once I believe, so you may have trouble seeing this objectivly.

*IF* DM had a kennel license, and while I don't know for sure what her township/city/county laws are regarding such a license, *if* you have a kennel license, you may want to read the fine print very thoroughly. Many times the stipulations of that license are that you are subject to an inspection at any time. I know the city in which we reside has that as just one of the criteria. In our city, had this happened, she would have lost her dogs almost immediatley. You are permitted no more than 3 dogs/cats, and thats with the "multi pet permit". Depending on the mood of the AC officer, they may have given her 24-48 hours to place those dogs, or simply seized them..thats also part of the license wording, on top of that, HUGE fines (that would only get BIGGER if in fact these were intact animals, and not current on rabies vaccine.)

Long and short of it, sounds like DM was running a breeding kennel in the city, without proper license etc, and perhaps her neighbors had enough of the noise/odor etc. It always only takes just one call to get the ball rolling. The reality is, if all her "ducks were in a row", she likely would not be in the mess she is in now.

All in all, with the Freedom of Information Act, once this goes to court, it will all become public record. Not too hard to order a court transcript if someone cared to do so. As Alboe said..if all your "i's" are dotted and all your "t's" are crossed, you run less risk of becoming a target. And if you do become a "target", then at least you have obeyed the law and can present an ironclad case.  The mere fact alone that DM has tried to remove all traces of her "kennel" from the internet does not bode well for her.

Additionally, DM is also of course free to come and explain what happened here too if she chooses. Or many of the other web boards this is on as well.

In any case, this seems scheduled for court soon, so we should all know more. Perhaps someones in the area can go sit in on that trial?

A warrant is no guarantee that the evidence was obtained legally and does not necessarily mean the judge will not throw it out. It also depends what the officers said to DM before they entered her property. I assure you that there is an AR organization watching how this developes.

The best way to prevent the AC and AR people from getting into breeders' faces while protecting the animals really isn't rocket science. Dont give them reasons to obtain a warrant and confiscate your dogs. Know the local dog laws and follow them. Don't enable breeders who, in your opinion, are not doing right by their dogs. No stud services, no more dogs. Yes, judge them and act accordingly. Don't be a part of adding more dogs to an already unacceptable situation.

I still can't fathom the noise, dust, and chaos of that many dogs crated in a house. Not my house anyhow. Even if they were model citizens in their crates, no barking or thrashing, the fur and dander alone would be tremendous.

To each their own, but I would find that more than I could take. I would be constantly cleaning up after them.



Does anyone know if it was all adult dogs? Were there puppies or young adults in the mix?

I cannot fathom 12+ dogs in my home either. Between the hair and noise..wow!
How does one even care, and not talking bare minimum, actually care properly for 12 dogs?
It doesn't seem like she had kennel runs set up? so how often/long was each dog out of its crate for?

We have 2 dogs, and while kept primarily in the house, there is time outside for potty breaks, training, and just plain old "being a dog" as well as daily walks.
Due to the size, or lackthereof, of our yard, we ensure the dogs get at least 2 miles daily of walking on/off leash. How does one properly exercise 12 dogs?
Perhaps I am assuming, she maybe had help?

Either way, when these dogs become nothing more than a "number in a lineup", maybe it's time to thin down the herd to a more manageable number?

And yes, I agree with Blitzen re the stud dog owners etc that enable someone to continue down a path like this. The outcome of this case will be interesting.

Animal cruelty/abuse felony cases generally take a year or more to adjudicate.


 

I have 2 puppies (6months and 5 months of age) and they keep me super-busy.  13 dogs would be a BIG challenge for me !