# 39 PB GSD's in DURHAM NY



## LadyHawk

WNYT.com - German Shepherds seized in Greene County available for adoption



The Columbia-Greene Humane Society and the Greene County Sheriff's Office removed 39 German Shepherd dogs and one cat from homes at 596 Morrison Road and 221 Hervey-Sunside Road.
The dogs were found living in such horrible conditions that investigators say the smell made their eyes water.
If you are interested in adopting the dogs, call the shelter at (518) 828-6044.
Dawn Verdeschi, 44, has been charged with animal cruelty.
A second suspect, Christopher Cella, 55, of Durham is wanted for questioning.
Anyone who knows of Cella’s whereabouts is asked to call Greene County Sheriff’s Department at (518) 943-3300.


----------



## onyx'girl

The shelter should verify OWNERSHIP! before placing any of those dogs. There may be some co-ownerships/dogs there on breeding contracts...they are not checking microchip information either, after several requests to do so. I don't understand why they are adopting them out so quickly....most shelters will at least have a screening process with a wait period before selling dogs.
There is one person in the Netherlands that has a male stud dog in this mess....she cannot even get anyone to help her get her dog back!


----------



## holland

This is really weird because _I don't know a lot about situations like this but I thought usually they had to wait until the court case was done before placing the dogs


----------



## stmcfred

I agree. Why are they adopting them out so soon? Has any testing or vet care been provided? How would they know if these dogs are even suitable for adoption?


----------



## onyx'girl

The person running the shelter is also a gsd breeder......interesting.


----------



## Blanketback

How can it be that the stud dog's owner can't get her dog back?! What BS is that?!


----------



## LadyHawk

I believe that is in the process- however... This post is not to stir the pot.... if there are animals to be placed- folks that (might ) be interested need to be fully prepared to act fast- There is only so much ANY shelter can handle- be the ACO a GSD breeder or not. The conditions were deplorable- once ownership/ contract issues are settled, these dogs (bottom line) need to move to foster/ adoption fast- There is pony so much space that ANY shelter can afford. 
People need to KNOW about it in order to ACT upon it.


----------



## geokon_2000

Crazy!! Ugh E-mails should be screened to find out if owners are trying to get their dogs back. I watched the news footage on this. Deplorable!!!


----------



## Jax08

holland said:


> This is really weird because _I don't know a lot about situations like this but I thought usually they had to wait until the court case was done before placing the dogs





stmcfred said:


> I agree. Why are they adopting them out so soon? Has any testing or vet care been provided? How would they know if these dogs are even suitable for adoption?


The dogs were surrendered which means the shelter can adopt out, send to rescue or euthanize (NOT that they are!!) as needed. The issue seems to be that she surrendered dogs that she didn't own.

Not all shelters have the resources to vet and test dogs. I would assume they had a quick look over, no obvious temperament issues, and ok'd to adopt out.


----------



## holland

ok that makes sense


----------



## geokon_2000

They are not on the available list at the shelter site.....the pic just says, anyone interested in adopting one of these dogs should fill out an application....there are further investigations to be done.......don't think they will be immediately adopted out


----------



## stmcfred

Okay that makes sense! Hope they all find great homes.


----------



## Blanketback

Hopefully this Dawn V. is just a terrible hoarder and not a true monster and will let the authorities know which dogs are to be returned to their owners?


----------



## Myamom

As to not detract from dogs that are in danger of being euthanized...this should be moved to non-urgent. While it is a lot of dogs...and undoubtedly a daunting task...this is a no kill shelter. 

http://cghs.org/about/


----------



## Castlemaid

Myamom said:


> As to not detract from dogs that are in danger of being euthanized...this should be moved to non-urgent. While it is a lot of dogs...and undoubtedly a daunting task...this is a no kill shelter.
> 
> http://cghs.org/about/


Agree! Moved to Non-Urgent, and title edited the whole situation is still not clear.


----------



## onyx'girl

New details emerge in case of Durham dogs - NEWS10 ABC: Albany, New York News, Weather, Sports


----------



## TAR HEEL MOM

Oh dear God. Makes my heart ache. I'm so glad they have been liberated! I sure hope they all find wonderful homes or find their way back to their homes.


----------



## BowWowMeow

The sheriff's dept wants to adopt a showline dog for their K9 unit? Oy! 

What a mess!


----------



## onyx'girl

wonder if it'll be speutered before the evaluation


----------



## JackandMattie

Aaargh. This is a sad story. I got my current dog as a foster, sheriff's seizure. But at least the ownership wasn't finalized until the court case was decided. What a fiasco


----------



## Jax08

BowWowMeow said:


> The sheriff's dept wants to adopt a showline dog for their K9 unit? Oy!
> 
> What a mess!


there are a couple references to the dogs going to law enforcement. And how amazing that the momma with the itty bitty pups let that stranger handle her pups. I can't believe these people have any idea what they are doing.


----------



## UFOH1

One person reports on the rescue site that the dogs were fine and the place was trashed by the seizing group. Not one dog seen has looked emaciated. If the dogs were left in foul cages, why are there no pics of dogs with matted pooh fur? Those cages could be old, unused, somebody else's -- who knows. That the dogs were offered up for adoption less than 24 hours post seizure seems a bit questionable to me. That the sheriff and others involved in the seizure have expressed interest in adopting some of these dogs is a conflict of interest IMHO. That the powers to be have made no attempt to read the microchips and identify those dogs not owned by Dawn V................ it continues to raise lots of questions that don't make sense. I do not know this person but the vigilante groups are alive and well on the rescue site. I do not feel the real story has surfaced. Wade through the dialog.........
https://www.facebook.com/CGHS.org


----------



## onyx'girl

I agree with you UFOH1.... And Charlene Marchand, Professional Dog Trainer and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Columbia-Greene Humane Society/SPCA (CGHS/SPCA) works with the Sherrifs dept. She is also a GSD breeder 

http://cghs.org/a-new-leash-on-life/


----------



## TAR HEEL MOM

North Carolina now has a law that any shelter or humane society MUST scan for a chip and place a call to the original owner. We got in a dog this week that the relinquisher said he bought on Craig's List. I still had to call the original owner when we realized the dog had a chip. Sure enough, the original owner had sold the dog on CL and didn't want him back, but what if that had not been the case? It is unconscionable to me that they are not scanning...


----------



## d4lilbitz

I went to the site of the Humane Soceity that is holding the dogs....they received over 400 applications from people wishing to adopt them....good news to a sad story. Hopefully these guys get the proper care they deserve.

Story below:

http://cghs.org/


----------



## onyx'girl

The landlord of the place the dogs were removed also owns a boarding facility and has GSD's. This story just gets odder and odder....I think someone had an agenda. I also heard 6 dogs were taken directly from the house and given to a trainer for the police, the chair of the shelter competes with this person.
Putnam Pet Resort, LLC

And the new shelter being built. Those requests for donations will come in handy:


----------



## UFOH1

Another interesting twist: The Columbia-Greene Human Society *started building a new shelter this week*. It will hold up to 90 cats and 50 dogs.

A quote from another:" I'm not saying it was right but with the weather the way it's been the dogs were safer inside than out and I am sure they would have cleaned up and replaced or fixed anything that needed to be . AGAIN THE MAIN CONCERN WAS THE DOGS !!!!! This was blown way out of proportion every one of those dogs were fit and taken care of and had all there shots. Feed and watered there was not 1 sick dog . They made this woman out to be a monster for 2 reasons the landlord and the police who saw a bunch of healthy new police dogs in there future ."

I am sure much more will unfold as time passes, the hysteria abates and cooler minds prevail.


----------



## TakeTheBlack

I feel bad for those dogs and their owners. I hope the full truth comes out and theres a happy ending for these dogs.


----------



## shepherdmom

What a mess.  Poor dogs.


----------



## UFOH1

Would this not be a conflict of interest inyour opinion?

Taize Shepherd Kennel - Home


----------



## Blanketback

The skeptic in me is doing the math on the value of those 39 GSDs.


----------



## onyx'girl

Friends: Verdeschi ?loved those dogs?


----------



## Msmaria

Shouldnt they get a warning before having their dogs seized. It sure makes me wonder whats going on here, things dont seem right. How can she surrender dogs she didnt own to the shelter? I think the shelter should be investigated.


----------



## gsdsar

The most concerning to me is the fact that have dismissed any case if coownership. They state it in the article that any claims are not being looked at, since she surrendered the dogs. So people that sent her dogs, have now lost their dog. That's really horrible. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Freestep

There is a big discussion going on the Facebook GSD group. Apparently, not all the dogs belonged to Dawn Vedeschi. One was a breeding dog on lease from a woman in Holland, and others were there to be shown or bred, but the shelter has refused to give these dogs back to their rightful owners, who had no idea any of this was going on. The shelter is moving extremely quickly with adopting out the dogs to friends and the sheriff's K9 program, however. I am not sure this is legal. The shelter used the excuse that all kinds of crackpots were coming in and claiming ownership so that they could get a top German showline GSD for free. However, if the dogs have microchips, tattoos, etc. and the owners have proof of ownership, why would they not give the dogs back?

It's very scary if this sets a precedent. Imagine you leave your dog at a boarding kennel. The kennel, unbeknownst to you, has fallen into disrepair and the dogs are being kept in awful conditions. The authorities bust in, seize the dogs, then refuse to give them back to their owners, but adopt them out quickly to people on the "inside". You'd be furious.

There's been murmurings that this whole thing was a setup. I don't know, but I do know that legal action is being pursued on behalf of the dog's legal owners.


----------



## Freestep

Friends: Verdeschi ?loved those dogs?

Here's an excerpt from a news article:

"
The dogs are valuable, high-quality German Shepherds that Verdeschi entered into prestigious shows like the Westminster Kennel Club’s Dog Show, among others. The Greene County Sheriff’s Office is talking about getting a few into K-9 units, and a few deputies are planning to adopt some personally.
“She had quite a few top-of-the-line show dogs,” said friend Vinnie Genovese. “Number five in the world.”
Claims have surfaced of co-owners in Europe for some of the dogs, but CGHS/SPCA President Ron Perez said if that was the case, it ended when Verdeschi agreed to surrender the dogs to the humane society.
“There’s a bunch of charlatans that have popped up claiming ‘We own this one, we own that one,’” he said. “We own all of them. She signed them over to us. If there’s a breach between some interested party and the defendant, that’s between them.” "

Pretty bold statement, and one that's likely to land them in trouble once a judge sees the case. I see multiple lawsuits coming.


----------



## onyx'girl

All the dots connecting to each other....I think it is a revenge/vendetta situation. 
The plan seems to be falling apart with all the questions being tossed around. I hope there is justice.


----------



## Jax08

gsdsar said:


> The most concerning to me is the fact that have dismissed any case if coownership. They state it in the article that any claims are not being looked at, since she surrendered the dogs. So people that sent her dogs, have now lost their dog. That's really horrible.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


The precedent is terrifying. Every dog owner should be up in arms over this and how it could affect them in the future.


----------



## Kahrg4

I just hugged my boys. This is really unsettling.


----------



## shepherdmom

any updates?


----------



## Zahnburg

This entire situation seems very suspect to me. It seems to me that two GSD breeders were able to eliminate a (more successful) competitor, a rescue org was able to get large donations to support the building of a massive new building, and a fledgling sheriff's dept. K-9 program was able to obtain free dogs. The strange thing is that these three entities seem to be intertwined in a variety of ways. Very strange indeed.


----------



## Zahnburg

Blanketback said:


> The skeptic in me is doing the math on the value of those 39 GSDs.


And what figure did you come up with?


----------



## Blanketback

I'm guessing somewhere in the $250,000 ballpark:

Publicity, in terms of donations 
Von Hunterhaus’ addition to others’ breeding programs
K9 acquisitions 
Legal expenditures by the rightful owners
Court restitution (especially if the dogs are altered!)
Ousting Perez from his position
The small sum any adoptions will bring in

What am I forgetting?


----------



## geokon_2000

This whole situation sounds a little funny. In the news vids, the dogs didn't look filthy like they'd been laying in their own stuff...yeah, the house looked horrible, but what house wouldn't with that many crates in it? That they are totally disregarding the ownership of the dogs for breeding, showing, etc. Is WAY messed up. The noted that some of these dogs are worth thousands of dollars...each.

Something is really beginning to stink


----------



## onyx'girl

We all know how one dogs duece can smell up a house quickly. One litter of puppies overnight in an x-pen can be overwhelmingly stinky. If these dogs were in such horrid shape, they didn't look it coming out in the first video....no matting/filthy coats were shown at all. This was a set up, it is clear to see after the AC actions immediately afterwards.


----------



## Blanketback

I'll give them points for choosing this time of year, with all the winter storms. Otherwise there'd be so many picketers, with huge "THIEF!" placards. With their dogs in tow, of course. At least at your side, you can retain ownership, lol! But what if you fall and hit your head, and end up in a coma? I guess your dog will be adopted out before you're released from the hospital? This is absolutely ridiculous. 

I wonder how this is affecting other kennels and boarding facilities, and doggie daycares out there? I'm guessing it will hurt their business, since owners will be hesitant to place their dogs in someone else's care now, after this fiasco.


----------



## TexasCrane

Freestep said:


> Claims have surfaced of co-owners in Europe for some of the dogs, but CGHS/SPCA President Ron Perez said if that was the case, it ended when Verdeschi agreed to surrender the dogs to the humane society.
> “There’s a bunch of charlatans that have popped up claiming ‘We own this one, we own that one,’” he said. “*We own all of them. She signed them over to us. If there’s a breach between some interested party and the defendant, that’s between them.*” "


That's an alarmingly ignorant statement from somebody who is the president of any sort of organization. Somebody should over to the parking lot of the shelter, and sell Ron Perez's car for $10 to the next person that walks by.


----------



## Freestep

Blanketback said:


> But what if you fall and hit your head, and end up in a coma? I guess your dog will be adopted out before you're released from the hospital? This is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> I wonder how this is affecting other kennels and boarding facilities, and doggie daycares out there? I'm guessing it will hurt their business, since owners will be hesitant to place their dogs in someone else's care now, after this fiasco.


 No kidding. I actually had a horrible nightmare about that very situation the other night; woke me up at 4 AM and I couldn't sleep again after that.


----------



## Blanketback

TexasCrane said:


> That's an alarmingly ignorant statement from somebody who is the president of any sort of organization.


Not just any organization, but *especially* ones who purport to care about our pets.


----------



## CelticGlory

She DID NOT sign them over! As originally stated: 



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


Suspected breeder arrested, dozens of dogs seized in New York - National Dogs | Examiner.com

This SPCA are nothing but lying scum bags! Another article stated she signed them over, but apparent that is not true! So they decided to take them anyway! 

I made a comment on the thread about this on PDB, I'm worried that other countries will not want to deal with us because of this case! But, I don't think anyone understands what I mean on that thread. Breeders here do a lot of business with other kennels overseas, they are less likely to trust us after this. I suggested that this case needed to go before federal court, which it does in the case of the oversea owners of some of the dogs for both countries (ours and theirs). Otherwise, they may never be able to get their dogs back. They were already talking about aborting the pregnant females pregnancies, I'm appalled since they are not their animals. Some of the females for we know could belong to the overseas owners.


----------



## UFOH1

"I'm looking at past articles and Ron Perez says the same exact thing with every seizure he does of animals. "This is the worst case I've ever seen. There were cages stacked and feces running down." Every single seizure. Wow. How many times can it be the worst thing he has ever seen? He says it almost weekly."


----------



## CelticGlory

Do you have any links this should be shared on PDB! Some people are trying to make Dawn out to be a Monster without all of the facts even though it's obvious they are lying about the conditions if the dogs at least some of them looked fine. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

I am concerned that people are okay with the conditions those dogs were in. For such valuable dogs, some supposedly not owned by you, you would think that there would be a better set up and the funds to do so. 

And regardless of value, to see dogs left alone like that - these intelligent companion animals - a breed we love, in a disturbing setting, while you may or may not believe that there is something hinky going on at the very least can people agree that this was not how these dogs should live?!?

PS -- this is a county humane society, not a rescue org - just wanted to clear this up

Ufoh1 - feel free to introduce yourself in the introductions area of the board!!


----------



## Freestep

I don't think anyone is "okay" with the conditions in which the dogs were found--that is not the issue. The issue that is disturbing to me is that some of these dogs were owned by other people, and the shelter has refused to release the dogs to their rightful owners, even when presented with proof of ownership. That is VERY scary, and if you ever leave your dog with anyone--handler, boarding kennel, trainer, even a friend--your dog can be taken away from you if the authorities decide to raid the establishment for whatever reason.


----------



## UFOH1

This is ALL supposition on MY part but fits what has been reported.
The vacant rental house was temp. used to house some of the adult/older dogs because of the bad weather. That was the house that was pictured as a disaster inside in all the news releases. Cages did look nasty but were they even used? Were they stored there? Don't know. No dogs I saw were either matted, covered in pooh or looked emaciated. The new moms/ pups were in Dawns house that she owned ( I believe ). I did not hear any news stories that said her house was a disaster. 
I believe this is a gross over reach of authority for personal gain without due process.
RESCUE RAIDS: HUMANE/SPCA/ANIMAL CONTROL SEIZURE RACKET, TheDogPress


----------



## Blanketback

I don't know if I'm "okay with the conditions" because I wasn't there to see them. I haven't even brought that up in my posts. What I find extremely upsetting is Perez carrying on like a drug dealer collecting on a bad debt. Criminal behavior on top of criminal activity...oh well. But this, "They're mine now sucker" attitude of his is despicable, considering who he is. It's detestable, hateful, loathsome and a whole lot more. I certainly hope he's held accountable. If my dog was involved in something like this, heads would be rolling.


----------



## shepherdmom

In the news video the conditions looked horrific, but the dog at the end, being brought out of the house, looked like he had just come from a groomer. He was playful and energetic. How the heck does a healthy clean dog come from those conditions? I'm confused as to what to think.


----------



## llombardo

I just read this thread for the first time. When I first seen the video the day it happened, my first thought was those dogs look pretty good, happy and healthy, certainly not the norm for a horrid hoarding situation. I don't doubt that there is more to the story, someone wanted those dogs. It doesn't make it look to good when everyone involved is connected I had a dalmatian that got sick one time, the vet tried telling me she died, I wanted to see her and get her ashes, all of the sudden she was alive. Turns out that a local fire department wanted her, I got her out of that vet pretty quick. If I didn't request to see her or get her ashes, I would not have found out what their little plan was


----------



## Mocha

They have received over 400 applications for the dogs and are no longer accepting applications. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## stmcfred

Oh, wow. That was pretty low of them to do that. Glad you were able to get her back alive. 



llombardo said:


> I had a dalmatian that got sick one time, the vet tried telling me she died, I wanted to see her and get her ashes, all of the sudden she was alive. Turns out that a local fire department wanted her, I got her out of that vet pretty quick. If I didn't request to see her or get her ashes, I would not have found out what their little plan was


----------



## Betty

Based on the pictures how any of you would be able to walk into that house and leave the dogs?


----------



## Blanketback

I hope you're not implying that I believe the dogs should be kept in terrible conditions.


----------



## Betty

Not at all, it never crossed my mind that any one would take the question personally or take the implication that they thinks dogs should live in terrible conditions.

But lets say you are an animal control officer for your county. And that the pictures were indicative of the state of the house. And no one lives there.

Would you leave with the dogs or without?


----------



## Freestep

From what I've gathered, the owners of the dogs did not drop their dogs off at that house and leave. There were two residences; the woman's home, and another uninhabited house where she was keeping some of the dogs--that was the one that was raided. I don't know the whole story of course, but I've heard that the house she was living in was not in bad condition, it was the other one that was trashed.

I heard that some of the dogs were moved to the uninhabited house due to bad weather conditions? In any case, this woman was certainly in over her head and needed help--the dogs should not have been living in bad conditions. But the rightful owners should get their dogs back!

FWIW, I haven't seen photos of the place they raided, only the outside of the house, and a couple pictures of the dogs. The outside didn't look that bad, and neither did the dogs.


----------



## Blanketback

If I had the power to remove dogs from deplorable situations, you bet your butt I'd act on it. I would take my position very seriously, and the well-being of the dogs would be of paramount importance. Determining ownership would be my first priority in a case like this. How in the bleep can they turn a blind eye to this?!


----------



## Betty

The photos of a couple of dogs that I saw, I agree they looked in good shape. The inside of the house, not so much


----------



## Blanketback

But we don't know the whole story, and that's why I can't comment on the dogs' living conditions. What if it's a huge set-up? What if the dogs are typically kenneled outdoors, but with this crazy winter and all the snow, it made the kennels hazardous? What if some hoarder had just vacated the other house, and the landlord told Dawn she could use it for the dogs, because it would be gutted in the spring anyhow? Who knows what's going on. I sure don't, lol. But to think that someone will lose their dog because Perez isn't trying to contact the owners is sickening to me.


----------



## UFOH1

Here is the manual that governs NY for animals. You can wade through as you wish. I will quote a few I found interesting:
http://www.nyshumane.org/manual/manualPDF/manual.pdf

NY Statutes: 363. Unauthorized possession of dogs presumptive evidence of larceny
The unauthorized possession of a dog or dogs, by any person not the true owner, for a period exceeding
ten days, without notifying either the owner, the local police authorities, or the superintendent of the
state police at Albany, New York, of such possession, shall be presumptive evidence of larceny" 

373 - 7- Why wasn't this done? "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, the court may order a person
charged with any violation of this article to provide necessary food, water, shelter and care for any
animal which is the basis of the charge, without the removal of the animal from its existing
location, until the charges against the person are adjudicated."
"Many of the recommendations, guidelines for seizure appear to have been compromised is this case."


----------



## sitstay

Freestep said:


> In any case, this woman was certainly in over her head and needed help--the dogs should not have been living in bad conditions. But the rightful owners should get their dogs back!


I have no opinion one way or the other on this case, because I don't know the facts. I have only read media accounts that have been linked to here and on PDB. From reading posts on PDB, it was known locally/regionally that this person was in trouble and had too many dogs and not enough money to do right by the dogs and do all the high level competition and breeding that she wanted to do. But who knows? Perhaps that is incorrect, too.

I have been involved in seizures of large numbers of purebred animals before, and the idea that a shelter won't release any particular animal(s) to some third party based only on the claim that they own all or part of that animal is NOT difficult to understand. Any shelter or organization who is at least trying to do a decent job won't just shrug and hand an animal over based on the claim only. They will tell the claimant that they must provide proof, legal proof, before they will release the animal. And I would imagine that if the third party claimant is reaching out from another country, the process is going to be even more difficult. 

Also, it should be noted that when someone like this woman is involved in a raid like this, it is not uncommon for their defenders to step forward and claim ownership (in whole or part) in order to "save" the animals from being "stolen" from the charged owner, or to "save" the bloodlines from mandatory speuter if the animal is ever adopted out. Would it be responsible of the shelter to just hand over every animal that someone else claims ownership of, without first requiring some proof of that ownership beyond the simple claim? Does the fact that at least some of these third party claims are coming from Europe mean that they are automatically more valid than a claim coming from someone in the same town or state? 

No, I don't personally find it fishy that the shelter is building an addition or a new facility. How in the world would a raid that just took place be involved in that process at all, considering that the plans to build an addition or a new facility would have had to be in the planning stages for a fair amount of time prior to the dogs ever being seized? That just doesn't make sense.

Nor do I find it a conflict of interest that a GSD breeder sits on the BOD of the shelter. How many times have some of the very same posters in this thread decried the lack of "real dog people" in shelter operations. And yet, if a real dog person does get involved, there is a conflict of interest? It is this kind of outcry that keeps many good dog people from being involved in their local/regional rescue and sheltering efforts. It just isn't worth the hassles. Which is too bad, because the dogs would benefit from their knowledge and contacts. Honestly, does anyone really think that the ASL breeder and BOD member would risk their own reputation to gain access to WGSL dogs, dogs that they could have easily added to their own lines if they desired simply by purchasing a breeding from the charged owner? What would be the easiest and cheapest route to take if that were the desired goal? Instead they decide to illegally seize and distribute dogs for their own use and the use of their friends in a fancy that doesn't even desire dogs of the type being seized?

I can also speak to how wrong the media can get certain aspects of situations like this. There is a big difference between adopting out animals and having so many interested applicants that continued applications are no longer needed. I was involved in a large cattery seizure in 2006 and we had applications from all over the country, weeks before any cats went anywhere. That did not mean that we were adopting them out. That just meant that we had many more people wanting to adopt, who had taken the steps to adopt when the time came. But it was reported, based on the application status, that we were adopting them out. Huge difference. 

It could very well be that the dogs that are being reported as "adopted" are actually being "fostered" by folks who want to be the first in line to adopt those particular dogs. That is actually a fairly common situation in cases like these. Volunteers and family members of the shelter staff will step up and say, "I want to adopt this particular animal when it is available" and in order to guarantee that happening, they are allowed to foster that particular animal. Everyone knows that the animal will be adopted by that person, so they are labeled as "unavailable" or "taken" on the manifest list. The people who now have the animals used their insider access to get something, and the shelter no longer has to worry about feeding and housing that animal. Because make no mistake, suddenly needing to house a large number of animals is a huge burden on any shelter. And getting even one out of a run or cage is one less to feed and clean up after. 

And UFO1? You aren't connected to Arabian horses by any chance are you? Because I recall a horse forum poster with the exact same username, with the exact same beliefs about a horse seizure in Maryland in 2011. In fact, if I remember correctly, that person was clear in stating that there was no such thing as a righteous seizure if purebred animals were involved. Which is a fairly intense statement to make and leads me to really question how impartial someone can be, on a case by case basis, if they truly believed that.

Now, with all that said, this could very well be a case of a rush to seize animals. I don't know because I am not there. I would just urge anyone to stop and think through some of the rhetoric. Perhaps a good outlet for your concern would be to contact the shelter and urge them to fully consider ownership claims, and to really make sure they are doing the best job possible, before legally handing over ownership to adopters. 
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

I wonder if the fact that these being desirable GSDs has anything to do with it? Would 39 'pitbulls' fare as well? Am I cynical to think *not*? LOL!


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> I wonder if the fact that these being desirable GSDs has anything to do with it? Would 39 'pitbulls' fare as well? Am I cynical to think *not*? LOL!


They would seize 39 pit bulls, but rather than having 100's of applications waiting, they would euthanize them with or without making them available to the public for adoption.

Remember, too, that the more media attention a seizure gets, the more desirable the animals get simply because of the media attention. Breed has very little to do with it once a story grows beyond the local area. Michael Vick is a perfect case as an example. Those dogs would have been euthanized as soon as the court case was over, if who owned them hadn't made it a national (international?) story. If that had never gone beyond a local news piece? Totally different outcome.
Sheilah


----------



## Guardyan

> .I am concerned that people are okay with the conditions those dogs were in. For such valuable dogs, some supposedly not owned by you, you would think that there would be a better set up and the funds to do so.
> 
> And regardless of value, to see dogs left alone like that - these intelligent companion animals - a breed we love, in a disturbing setting, while you may or may not believe that there is something hinky going on at the very least can people agree that this was not how these dogs should live?!?


My sentiments exactly. 

If you can't care for your animals properly, you don't deserve them.


----------



## llombardo

Betty said:


> Based on the pictures how any of you would be able to walk into that house and leave the dogs?


Well pictures are just that. They can be altered, photo shopped, and people can choose what settings/backgrounds they want. Were they living like that or were pictures taken after dogs were removed and the place was raided? Dogs in these situations never look this good, nor are they happy. They are skiddish , afraid of people, tail between legs, fur matted, etc . I didn't see any if that.


----------



## Blanketback

But would they seize them? Wouldn't they do a home inspection first, and possibly issue a warning if they found any concerns regarding the dogs' care? And then follow up with another visit, to assure compliance? I'm not defending Dawn or condoning the dogs' housing - since I don't know anything about her or the situation - but I'm also unable to jump on the bandwagon to vilify her for those very same reasons.


----------



## Mocha

You guys are terrifying me  

The more I read your comments the more I get so nervous. 

They are a high value breed. Everyone wants them and everyone wants to breed them. 

Do you really think he seized them to kill of competition ? If the shelter owner is a GSD breeder himself, who is to know if he actually keeps them for his own breeding program instead of altering them and adopting them out ?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley

sit said:


> I have no opinion one way or the other on this case, because I don't know the facts. I have only read media accounts that have been linked to here and on PDB. From reading posts on PDB, it was known locally/regionally that this person was in trouble and had too many dogs and not enough money to do right by the dogs and do all the high level competition and breeding that she wanted to do. But who knows? Perhaps that is incorrect, too.
> 
> I have been involved in seizures of large numbers of purebred animals before, and the idea that a shelter won't release any particular animal(s) to some third party based only on the claim that they own all or part of that animal is NOT difficult to understand. Any shelter or organization who is at least trying to do a decent job won't just shrug and hand an animal over based on the claim only. They will tell the claimant that they must provide proof, legal proof, before they will release the animal. And I would imagine that if the third party claimant is reaching out from another country, the process is going to be even more difficult.
> 
> Also, it should be noted that when someone like this woman is involved in a raid like this, it is not uncommon for their defenders to step forward and claim ownership (in whole or part) in order to "save" the animals from being "stolen" from the charged owner, or to "save" the bloodlines from mandatory speuter if the animal is ever adopted out. Would it be responsible of the shelter to just hand over every animal that someone else claims ownership of, without first requiring some proof of that ownership beyond the simple claim? Does the fact that at least some of these third party claims are coming from Europe mean that they are automatically more valid than a claim coming from someone in the same town or state?
> 
> No, I don't personally find it fishy that the shelter is building an addition or a new facility. How in the world would a raid that just took place be involved in that process at all, considering that the plans to build an addition or a new facility would have had to be in the planning stages for a fair amount of time prior to the dogs ever being seized? That just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Nor do I find it a conflict of interest that a GSD breeder sits on the BOD of the shelter. How many times have some of the very same posters in this thread decried the lack of "real dog people" in shelter operations. And yet, if a real dog person does get involved, there is a conflict of interest? It is this kind of outcry that keeps many good dog people from being involved in their local/regional rescue and sheltering efforts. It just isn't worth the hassles. Which is too bad, because the dogs would benefit from their knowledge and contacts. Honestly, does anyone really think that the ASL breeder and BOD member would risk their own reputation to gain access to WGSL dogs, dogs that they could have easily added to their own lines if they desired simply by purchasing a breeding from the charged owner? What would be the easiest and cheapest route to take if that were the desired goal? Instead they decide to illegally seize and distribute dogs for their own use and the use of their friends in a fancy that doesn't even desire dogs of the type being seized?
> 
> I can also speak to how wrong the media can get certain aspects of situations like this. There is a big difference between adopting out animals and having so many interested applicants that continued applications are no longer needed. I was involved in a large cattery seizure in 2006 and we had applications from all over the country, weeks before any cats went anywhere. That did not mean that we were adopting them out. That just meant that we had many more people wanting to adopt, who had taken the steps to adopt when the time came. But it was reported, based on the application status, that we were adopting them out. Huge difference.
> 
> It could very well be that the dogs that are being reported as "adopted" are actually being "fostered" by folks who want to be the first in line to adopt those particular dogs. That is actually a fairly common situation in cases like these. Volunteers and family members of the shelter staff will step up and say, "I want to adopt this particular animal when it is available" and in order to guarantee that happening, they are allowed to foster that particular animal. Everyone knows that the animal will be adopted by that person, so they are labeled as "unavailable" or "taken" on the manifest list. The people who now have the animals used their insider access to get something, and the shelter no longer has to worry about feeding and housing that animal. Because make no mistake, suddenly needing to house a large number of animals is a huge burden on any shelter. And getting even one out of a run or cage is one less to feed and clean up after.
> 
> And UFO1? You aren't connected to Arabian horses by any chance are you? Because I recall a horse forum poster with the exact same username, with the exact same beliefs about a horse seizure in Maryland in 2011. In fact, if I remember correctly, that person was clear in stating that there was no such thing as a righteous seizure if purebred animals were involved. Which is a fairly intense statement to make and leads me to really question how impartial someone can be, on a case by case basis, if they truly believed that.
> 
> Now, with all that said, this could very well be a case of a rush to seize animals. I don't know because I am not there. I would just urge anyone to stop and think through some of the rhetoric. Perhaps a good outlet for your concern would be to contact the shelter and urge them to fully consider ownership claims, and to really make sure they are doing the best job possible, before legally handing over ownership to adopters.
> Sheilah



Excellent post! Sheilah, thank you for taking the time to share your experience and perspective.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> But would they seize them? Wouldn't they do a home inspection first, and possibly issue a warning if they found any concerns regarding the dogs' care? And then follow up with another visit, to assure compliance? I'm not defending Dawn or condoning the dogs' housing - since I don't know anything about her or the situation - but I'm also unable to jump on the bandwagon to vilify her for those very same reasons.


Yes, actually they would seize them. As I said, I don't know the details of this case any more than anyone else posting here, so I can't speak to this situation in particular. However, I can speak to general procedures and outcomes that I have seen in cases that I do know the details of.

Lets say that the animal control office gets a complaint that a bunch of dogs are being kept in unhealthy conditions, and the owner does not have the funds to rectify the situation. Animal control goes out to investigate and discovers a large number of dogs on the property and very limited resources. Lets say that the owner only has enough food on hand to feed the dogs for another day and no ability (i.e. no money on hand and no proof that there will be any money any time soon). Or lets say that the owner has no more food, and is waiting for a donation of food from some unnamed person who has offered to provide a 50lb bag of dog food. And lets say that the owner in question is the only person available to care for (feeding, cleaning, etc.) a large number of animals and that is not going to change any time soon because the owner has no way to _*make *_it change (i.e. no money to hire anyone to come in and help and lets say that have already burned out friends and family that might have been willing to help out in the months previous and nobody wants to come out and pick up dog poop when the owner in question has no intention of making changes so they won't require that help any more). So the dogs that are living in their own filth will continue to live that way because there just isn't enough of that one person to go around enough to make a difference in how they are kept.

Animal control would probably seize in that case, because there is no way the owner can rectify the situation within a reasonable time frame and in a _*consistent*_, _*reliable*_ way. Do you want your tax dollars going to the feeding of some private breeder or owner's animals simply because they can't afford to do it themselves? I sure don't. Or what about a private shelter sending staff and/or volunteers out to clean kennels for someone (who continues to breed and compete their dogs while getting all this excellent "help"), while turning away animals who need homes because they don't have the man power to be all things to all people? 

When you're talking about a large number of animals, handing over a couple of bags of food isn't going to hold over an owner until they can step up themselves and handle it on their own. How efficient would it be for LE/AC to go out there and go through the same song and dance every two or three days, knowing that the owner in question has no way to change how they are handling the situation from Day One?

And please remember, even some of this woman's defenders are admitting that there were issues. They just claim that she should have been helped instead of having the animals seized. My own personal opinion on that attitude is that it isn't the responsibility of the shelters or rescues to feed anyone's animals because they can't do it themselves. If you can't feed and care for the number of animals you have in your care and control, you shouldn't have that number of animals. That is my opinion generally, and not aimed at this situation in particular. 
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay

Mocha said:


> They are a high value breed. Everyone wants them and everyone wants to breed them.


This is just not true. Hundreds of GSD are euthanized every day in this country simply because nobody wants them.

As far as an ASL breeder and exhibitor wanting to wipe out the competition? WGSL dogs are not competing with ASL dogs. At least not in numbers high enough to be a competitive threat and not in many venue that I am aware of. 

I don't even think a person could make the case that there is competition for puppy buyers between the two lines. The uneducated who don't know the difference aren't paying those kinds of prices for a puppy and people specifically looking for a WGSL wouldn't consider an ASL breeder, just as someone specifically looking for an ASL wouldn't consider a WGSL. That whole conflict of interest idea is ridiculous, in my opinion and based only on how mutually exclusive the two lines are in the venues frequented by the two breeders in question (the shelter BOD member and the woman who has had her dogs seized).
Sheilah


----------



## UFOH1

I disagree sit,stay - you have lots of opinions.

1) site, other than hearsay, links that state she was in trouble and couldn't show her dogs. If you google you will find she was competing in this country and others in late 2013.

2) This shelter/SPCA group has allegedly refused to accept calls from owners in Europe seeking information about their dogs and this shelter/ SPCA group has allegedly refused to scan for chips. German GSDs are microchipped -a requirement since 2012. Previously they has ear tattoos. With the ease of faxing, smart phones, e-mail ID of these dogs would be easy to prove yet the shelter/SPCA allegedly isn't even trying to unite these dogs with their owners. Whether these owners are US or elsewhere matters little if their papers are in order.

3) Building a new shelter - normally would not be suspect but when on their FB page the rescue states this:
" We do not euthanize animals for space constraints and do not receive any federal, state, or county funding. Where is the money coming from? Certainly seizing dogs that are healthy, highly desirable and asking for funds to support same is questionable.....

4) The BOD has American GSDs and shows from her page in AKC shows. Anyone involved in GSDs for any time would be aware of the American GSD breeders dislike of the German GSDs. If both are selling puppies, then there is a reason to cast doubt on either breeder to gain sales of puppies and breeding stock.

5) Who ARE you to decide that "distribute dogs for their own use and the use of their friends in a fancy that doesn't even desire dogs of the type being seized?" That is hilarious - these are not the German show lines but the WORKING GSD lines - you know, the ones that catch the bad guys, track lost children etc.

6) I can agree with you that the media mucks things up and reader be ware. Beau coup adoption applications is marvelous - how many adoptions were solicited before the seizure? You have the sheriff stating he wants one of the dogs for himself. There is a big difference in "adopted and being fostered". If you are in rescue, as a professional, I would think you would represent the status of your charges honestly.

Nice to be remembered sitstay but your memory is faulty - "there was no such thing as a righteous seizure if purebred animals were involved."
Never said that. 
I will say that as with the horses seized in MD and this seizure, it is my opinion there was abuse of power and a hidden agenda. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

just read on another forum, an attorney has been hired and there is a court hearing on Tuesday.


----------



## Freestep

sit said:


> I have been involved in seizures of large numbers of purebred animals before, and the idea that a shelter won't release any particular animal(s) to some third party based only on the claim that they own all or part of that animal is NOT difficult to understand. Any shelter or organization who is at least trying to do a decent job won't just shrug and hand an animal over based on the claim only. They will tell the claimant that they must provide proof, legal proof, before they will release the animal.


I get that. From what I understand, the owners have their dogs registered and microchipped/tattooed, and can therefore prove ownership, but the shelter is refusing to scan for microchips? That, I don't get.



> Also, it should be noted that when someone like this woman is involved in a raid like this, it is not uncommon for their defenders to step forward and claim ownership (in whole or part) in order to "save" the animals from being "stolen" from the charged owner, or to "save" the bloodlines from mandatory speuter if the animal is ever adopted out. Would it be responsible of the shelter to just hand over every animal that someone else claims ownership of, without first requiring some proof of that ownership beyond the simple claim?


Of course not. I understand that all kinds of charlatans may come forward in the case of valuable show/breeding dogs and claiming ownership, or friends of the defendant claiming ownership in order to "save" the dogs. I understand that. What I don't get is why they are refusing to give the dogs back to their owners even when they are showing proof of rightful ownership.


----------



## onyx'girl

> just read on another forum, an attorney has been hired and there is a court hearing on Tuesday.


How does the person who posted that know this? From what I heard only one attorney was willing to take the case and wanted a $6500 retainer. The state, AG and trickle downs are basically against breeders and could probably care less that this situation was unfair in how it played out. 

Be warned, anyone who lives in NY(or other states) this is what happens when the AR's are running the show. 
It could happen at a daycare, boarding facility or to anyone if someone makes a claim of neglect. 
Scary.... if you won't willingly sign over your dogs, they will be seized and then become property of the shelter. The shelter governs itself and makes its own rules.

I read on a fb page that all dogs were spayed/neutered/aborted litters and adopted out. None are in the shelter. Not sure if that is true either, but I tend to believe it.


----------



## Freestep

onyx'girl said:


> Be warned, anyone who lives in NY(or other states) this is what happens when the AR's are running the show.
> It could happen at a daycare, boarding facility or to anyone if someone makes a claim of neglect.
> Scary....


It could even happen to a groomer! Dogs come and stay with me for at least 3 hours. If someone had a vendetta against me for whatever reason, they could call the authorities to my salon. They won't find dogs sitting in poopy cages, but they could claim that the animals had no food or water, which is exactly what the woman in NY is being charged with. It sounds ridiculous, but if a precedent is set, this is what it could come down to. VERY scary... it's actually giving me nightmares.


----------



## selzer

This winter has been ridiculous. 

I had 2 of mine with diarrhea at 4AM two days ago, and the stench woke me up. Happy Valentines Day!!! Wake Up, get me and my crate pan out of here!

Conditions are temporary. I am sorry, but they should be looking at the condition of the dogs. If they do not like the conditions of the environment, but the condition of the dogs was good, then they should have issued a warning and some recommendations. But they should not have removed perfectly healthy animals in good condition. 

You would think we didn't have a pet overpopulation problem in this country. 

Is it possible that shelters/humane societies are quicker to seize animals from breeders because:

A: purebred dogs make up about 25% of shelter populations, and they can be easier to find homes for;

B: a breeder is breeding and going to continue to pump out puppies, which most shelter people do feel is adding to the problem that they are dealing with.

39 dogs, 31 or 32 adults would be difficult, no impossible to provide for the way that most of the people here keep their pets. All of those dogs are not getting walked three times a day and hanging out in front of the TV for evening with their person, and lying on the bed with their owner. The law does not stipulate that people provide for each dog its own bedroom in the house, so much TV time, and a membership to the gym. The law stipulates the animals are given adequate food, shelter, and veterinary care. 

Were the conditions in that house adequate? No. Sorry folks, but the news reporter was there at the house, so they aren't substituting the same photos from some seizure six years ago in Idaho. The dogs did not have adequate space, and there was no way she could possibly keep up with letting them all out to potty and all back in. So, they were forced to let go in their crates. And, cleaning those would take even more time away from the person trying to handle the situation. 

Someone mentioned a co-defendent. Two people could let 32 dogs in and out for a couple of days while the temperatures were too low for them to be outside for significant periods. 

Yes, this situation could have been a compilation of a boyfriend or business partner that walked out of the situation, at the wrong time in this crazy winter. 

If the dogs were not in poor condition, in poor health, then Animal Control should have given her a chance to improve the situation. Otherwise, there is no way to believe anything other than the agency was trying to get some critters that they could offer for SALE and earn some money for the shelter from these dogs, which they will not have to do anything more than speuter. 

I am sure they are not going to charge anywhere near what the animals may be worth to the public, but even several hundred dollars each, when they really do not require much in the way of health or behavior modification. 

They said a few of the dogs were skinny. But how many skinny dogs do we have on this site? GSDs can be the devil themselves to put weight on. In a population of 39, I would expect some to be skinny.


----------



## onyx'girl

There were two litters included in that total #, one litter was only 2 weeks old....so 10 dogs at the actual home(where they never even went to the shelter, but ended up at a trainer for police K9 placement) and then the others at the rental.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/100827050053129/


----------



## UFOH1

Owners came in with PROOF of ownership and they were denied their dogs. Charlene Marchand, the chair of the humane society, owns a competing GSD breeding facility. 12 dogs never even made it to the shelter. 2 were adopted to friends of the shelter personnel and 10 were sent to the police department for their fledgling K-9 unit. Not to mention, I read tonight that this humane society can write their own warrants to seize animals.

This is shady as **** and I hope you guys get sued out if existence. Truly disgusting. You have managed to give humane societies a horrible name by your actions.

https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=609796755740871





Plus, not a single dog required veterinary care.

https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=609796995740847





well i have called ten times and put my app in and have heard noting and this has been going on sense the day news hit so there must be problems going on

https://www.facebook.com/CGHS.org#





 12 dogs never even went to the shelter. 10 went straight to the police and 2 were adopted by personal friends of the shelter. They weren't even surrendered

https://www.facebook.com/CGHS.org#





went for a photo op and that's it. This is typical SPCA scamming. They use a false story to grab at your heart strings and your wallet.

https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=610124352374778















Write a comment...


----------



## shepherdmom

onyx'girl said:


> There were two litters included in that total #, one litter was only 2 weeks old....so 10 dogs at the actual home(where they never even went to the shelter, but ended up at a trainer for police K9 placement) and then the others at the rental.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/100827050053129/


Can't read it. You have to be a member.


----------



## sitstay

Freestep said:


> I get that. From what I understand, the owners have their dogs registered and microchipped/tattooed, and can therefore prove ownership, but the shelter is refusing to scan for microchips? That, I don't get.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. I understand that all kinds of charlatans may come forward in the case of valuable show/breeding dogs and claiming ownership, or friends of the defendant claiming ownership in order to "save" the dogs. I understand that. What I don't get is why they are refusing to give the dogs back to their owners even when they are showing proof of rightful ownership.


I haven't seen it reported anywhere that they have refused to scan for microchips or that anyone has been able to prove that they own a dog and had it's return refused. I am not talking about hearsay, or FB posts or blog entries. But verified media reports that this happened or is happening.

Now, if that is the case? That someone other than the charged woman has been able to show proof beyond just a claim and they refuse to even entertain the idea of returning the dog(s) to the rightful owner? That is wrong and the shelter should be charged with theft. If an attorney has been hired, and theft has occurred? I hope it comes to light quickly and the shelter is hut down and all involved parties are held criminally responsible.
Sheilah


----------



## onyx'girl

The media could care less about the chips/etc...they see a dirty horrible place and hate on the breeder. Media can skew the story any way they want.
There is one reporter(Kyle) that people have written to, he is 'out of the building/off duty' until Sunday.


----------



## sitstay

UFOH1 said:


> 5) Who ARE you to decide that "distribute dogs for their own use and the use of their friends in a fancy that doesn't even desire dogs of the type being seized?" _*That is hilarious - these are not the German show lines but the WORKING GSD lines*_ - you know, the ones that catch the bad guys, track lost children etc.


Now that my suspicion of who you are has been verified, I won't engage you on this topic any more. It is pointless.

However, I will say that what I find "hilarious" is the fact that you don't know the difference between WGSL, which these dogs very much are, and working lines, which these dogs very much aren't, and yet you feel the need to tell me what they are or aren't. 

Carry on. I have had my say. 
Sheilah


----------



## UFOH1

I totally agree sitstay........we disagree.


----------



## selzer

They are German Show-line dogs, though I didn't see them all, she may have some American bred dogs there. Someone said they had the #5 dog, and they were shown at Westminster? 

But maybe I am getting mixed up with other stuff. 

I know some GSL dogs that are used for Search and Rescue and police work.


----------



## Msmaria

Looks like this has been going on for awhile. 
RESCUE RAIDS: HUMANE/SPCA/ANIMAL CONTROL SEIZURE RACKET, TheDogPress


----------



## onyx'girl

Exactly....There is too much power given to some of these shelters. I am so glad that my community is rescue friendly and the humane society/shelter are not in the same league as these. There is 'self-policing' so no one entity has so much power. But it is still worth keeping eyes wide open.


----------



## UFOH1

SS sitstay- when it comes to people that view "authority" ie for example SPCA,shelters, PD, attys etc they tend to follow blindly and believe everything that is reported as truth. 

I think many members here have shown they are thinking for themselves and questioning the legal ramifications of power runamok and looking for facts before forming an opinion. That's all I am doing too.

This seizure sucks in my opinion and much more needs to come out ----


----------



## Msmaria

onyx'girl said:


> Exactly....There is too much power given to some of these shelters. I am so glad that my community is rescue friendly and the humane society/shelter are not in the same league as these. There is 'self-policing' so no one entity has so much power. But it is still worth keeping eyes wide open.


Good to keep eyes open as it only takes a few states to allow this before it spreads like wild fire. Exactly why we should all be interested in this case


----------



## onyx'girl

Agree, and thanks for sharing this link here. 
I saw it elsewhere but didn't click on it. I shared it on the fb page. Thank you!


----------



## UFOH1

Selzer - we don't have an over population of pets in this country. The spay/neuter groups have loudly proclaimed and brainwashed the public to the point of nausea.
If you google, you will find that US shelters, in order to not close and lose their funding, are importing dogs from as far as Kuwait to fill their shelters. Many shelters have no dogs up for adoption and others found that people wanted other breeds than pitbulls - hence the importing to fill that void. Pet people are being duped......

Humane or Insane? | National Animal Interest Alliance

Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease - USATODAY.com

SHELTER & RESCUE IMPORTS, TRAFFICKING IN DOGS, by Linda Witouski


----------



## selzer

UFOH1 said:


> Selzer - we don't have an over population of pets in this country. The spay/neuter groups have loudly proclaimed and brainwashed the public to the point of nausea.
> If you google, you will find that US shelters, in order to not close and lose their funding, are importing dogs from as far as Kuwait to fill their shelters. Many shelters have no dogs up for adoption and others found that people wanted other breeds than pitbulls - hence the importing to fill that void. Pet people are being duped......
> 
> Humane or Insane? | National Animal Interest Alliance
> 
> Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease - USATODAY.com
> 
> SHELTER & RESCUE IMPORTS, TRAFFICKING IN DOGS, by Linda Witouski


We have an over-population of pets. Until it is impossible for kids without a job, still in school, renting w/roommates to afford to purchase a pet they cannot afford, one can say we have a pet over-population problem.


----------



## UFOH1

Yeah, I know that is an unpopular stance - the same as spay/ neuter at a young age is shortening/ killing our pets.

Ingrained beliefs are so hard to dispel.


----------



## crackem

I kind of agree that we don't have an over population of pets. To a point. Almost ALL of these pets in shelters had homes, a lot of those that surrender or drop off their animals will get another one, just not the one they had. There really isn't a huge problem with too many animals, just a huge problem with finding owners that will fulfill their obligations to an animal for it's entire life. Responsibility seems to be an easy thing to shift these days. Millions of puppies will find their way into homes this year and millions more will be dropped off when they've outlived their usefulness to whomever bought them.


----------



## selzer

UFOH1 said:


> Yeah, I know that is an unpopular stance - the same as spay/ neuter at a young age is shortening/ killing our pets.
> 
> Ingrained beliefs are so hard to dispel.


One can always find evidence that supports what one wants to believe. One can always find reasons to discount any evidence that does not support what one wants to believe.


----------



## UFOH1

Don't know selzer- I tend to agree when there are scientific studies that support the harm in early neutering. 

I can understand shelters adopting out neutered pets. Shelters have no clue who is or is not responsible so...........those pets are expendable in their eyes. 






As far as pet population - yes there are some pounds that have a legit problem with overpopulation.
My area imported dogs from Puerto Rico. Was fun as they came in sick and made our local dogs sick.


----------



## LifeofRiley

In the absence of facts, wild speculation, hysteria and paranoia have run amok on this thread. Sheilah (sit,stay) made a valiant effort to bring balance and common sense to this conversation… but, it all seems to be for naught.

The bottom line is that nobody knows the facts of this particular case yet…. I find it highly amusing that people are citing facebook posts as facts. 

Sheilah did this thread a great service by laying out the SOP of shelters post-seizure. Her experiences mirror my own.

If the woman in question did not have the legal right to surrender some of the dogs in her possession, it will be worked out through the legal system. Of course, by the time all of the FACTS come out, most of the people who have contributed to this thread will have long since lost interest.


----------



## selzer

UFOH1 said:


> Don't know selzer- I tend to agree when there are scientific studies that support the harm in early neutering.
> 
> I can understand shelters adopting out neutered pets. Shelters have no clue who is or is not responsible so...........those pets are expendable in their eyes.
> 
> Dr. Becker: The Truth About Spaying and Neutering - YouTube
> 
> As far as pet population - yes there are some pounds that have a legit problem with overpopulation.
> My area imported dogs from Puerto Rico. Was fun as they came in sick and made our local dogs sick.


UFOH1, you're new here, so you don't know me, or my opinions on spaying or neutering. It has nothing to do with this thread. Both sides of any argument can cite studies and find evidence to support what they believe.

As for pet over-population, when you can walk into a shelter anywhere, and plunk down $25-$125 and walk away with a dog, we have too many dogs out there. Too many people take home dogs because they are readily available. Too readily available.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

Msmaria said:


> Looks like this has been going on for awhile.
> RESCUE RAIDS: HUMANE/SPCA/ANIMAL CONTROL SEIZURE RACKET, TheDogPress


That was a scary read.


----------



## Sarah~

This is not the first seizure that I've heard of that people thought was shady. But it seemed like no one cared too much to really do anything about it because of the breed of dog. Definitely some questions that need answered in this case, I hope what people are saying isn't true but I would not be shocked if it was.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Sarah~ said:


> This is not the first seizure that I've heard of that people thought was shady. But it seemed like no one cared too much to really do anything about it because of the breed of dog. Definitely some questions that need answered in this case, I hope what people are saying isn't true but I would not be shocked if it was.


What particular questions need to be answered in this case? And, what facts are you basing your need for answers on?


----------



## Sarah~

The same questions being asked by everyone else, and the same facts everyone else has. Are they refusing to scan for microchips? If so, why? Are people from other countries showing proof of ownership and the shelter is still refusing to return them? If so, why? And so on and so on... I get that facebook comments and such are not facts but just because the article didn't say it doesn't immediately make it not true and if there are a lot of people saying this than it should be addressed, IMO. Especially since it seems like this is going to get a lot of publicity, and if they don't have anything to hide there should be no problem doing that.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

LifeofRiley said:


> What particular questions need to be answered in this case? And, what facts are you basing your need for answers on?


I believe most folks are questioning the following quote (presumably factually quoted) in the article originally linked back in post #36:

Claims have surfaced of co-owners in Europe for some of the dogs, but CGHS/SPCA President Ron Perez said if that was the case, it ended when Verdeschi agreed to surrender the dogs to the humane society.
“There’s a bunch of charlatans that have popped up claiming ‘We own this one, we own that one,’” *he said. “We own all of them. She signed them over to us. If there’s a breach between some interested party and the defendant, that’s between them.”*

Friends: Verdeschi ?loved those dogs?

That bold statement doesn't sound like he has the best interests of the animals at heart, or possible rightful owners, and that there could easily be a more selfish motive to taking possession of the animals.


----------



## Blanketback

LifeofRiley said:


> Of course, by the time all of the FACTS come out, most of the people who have contributed to this thread will have long since lost interest.


Could you please expand on that thought? The contemptuousness of that remark astounds me.
Every single one of us has a stake in this, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Perez was actually quoted - nobody put those words in his mouth. How can you ignore that?!


----------



## Blanketback

On second thought LifeofRiley, please disregard my previous post. Unfortunately I broke one of my own personal internet rules (#1: Never post when angry) and there's much more important things to discuss. For instance:



LifeofRiley said:


> If the woman in question did not have the legal right to surrender some of the dogs in her possession, it will be worked out through the legal system.


Do you sincerely believe this? I'm shocked, if you do. I think it's *preposterous* that we, as rightful owners, should have to retain legal counsel in order to get our dogs back! Wow.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Here is one question I have - are these dogs actually chipped? For positive - not just people saying they are? 

But regardless, I agree - I don't think that anyone likes the procedures and policies (??? not sure what they are) of what happened after the dogs were taken, from what we are seeing from the outside. 

Unfortunately, because she was in possession of this property (because that's what non AR people see dogs as) and signed this property over, and now they are in possession of it - it appears those who have the gold, write the rules. 

I don't leave my dogs anywhere for even a day if I haven't been there, and frankly, they can't get anywhere without me - none are allowed to drive or call for a cab. They certainly are not going to go to some stranger that I know from the internet for even more time than that! 

So unless people on this board and thread are possessed of extremely poor judgement in where they let their dogs go without them and for how long, I am confident that the people who are extremely worried about this happening to themselves will be okay. 

If however, you do send your dog to another country with someone you know only over the internet and phone, then you need to add some additional safeguards. Increasing in degree by length of time. If you cannot say that you can do this, then perhaps it's not the best thing to do with your dog. If your dog is part of your business and not a pet, more layers are involved. 

There is a giant thread in this section of the board - do you know where that dog is going. It doesn't just apply to this section of the board.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

> How does the person who posted that know this?


Jane to answer your Q back on page 9, I don't know, read it on PDB and it was a one liner..


----------



## onyx'girl

Jean, because these dogs were shown and held titles they had to have an identifiable ID....tattoo's or chips. 
Diane, do you know the person that made that statement? I don't know too many on the PDB. Wonder if s/he is in that locale? I hope s/he is right!


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Here is one question I have - are these dogs actually chipped? For positive - not just people saying they are?
> 
> But regardless, I agree - I don't think that anyone likes the procedures and policies (??? not sure what they are) of what happened after the dogs were taken, from what we are seeing from the outside.
> 
> Unfortunately, because she was in possession of this property (because that's what non AR people see dogs as) and signed this property over, and now they are in possession of it - it appears those who have the gold, write the rules.
> 
> I don't leave my dogs anywhere for even a day if I haven't been there, and frankly, they can't get anywhere without me - none are allowed to drive or call for a cab. They certainly are not going to go to some stranger that I know from the internet for even more time than that!
> 
> So unless people on this board and thread are possessed of extremely poor judgement in where they let their dogs go without them and for how long, I am confident that the people who are extremely worried about this happening to themselves will be okay.
> 
> If however, you do send your dog to another country with someone you know only over the internet and phone, then you need to add some additional safeguards. Increasing in degree by length of time. If you cannot say that you can do this, then perhaps it's not the best thing to do with your dog. If your dog is part of your business and not a pet, more layers are involved.
> 
> There is a giant thread in this section of the board - do you know where that dog is going. It doesn't just apply to this section of the board.


I think the story shows how easy it is for your dog to be taken from you and what little due process or recourse you have.

In the 12 years I had my GSD, I had more than one busy-body know it all's complain about my dog in the back of the truck. 

Once was sitting outside a restraunt in WI after a morning of snowshoeing together. I knew the chef and when she heard of the people complaining then she put them in their place.

More than once my wife got a complaint while the dog was at her work in a hotel parking lot. The dog would ride in with her on days when he had a morning vet appointment. In both cases, people seem to think a dog must have free access to both food and water 24/7. Had any of those complaints been voiced to the "wrong" person, this story shows I could have had my dog taken without due process.

I had a friend get her dog stolen from her while camping in the Black Hills. She's the biggest animal lover I know and her dog was too old to keep up with the horses on a trail ride. Dog was tied up to a tree on a nice day and witness accounts said the dog was fine. But some SPCA kennel worker bleeding-heart type decided he was worried about the dog and took it - several hundred miles across the state. And without the dogs medicine.

It took several days and a lot of phone calls to track the dog down. Fortunately my friend won over a LEO in the Black Hills who placed a threatening phone call to the abductor. She got her dog back but there was no recourse.


----------



## RebelGSD

The conditions in my local shelter are deplorable, similar to the kennels shown in the video. Photos were sent to county politicians to influence change, the public is being ignored. The shelter is under the health department, a total joke! And these are the people who issue kennel licenses and have the right to harass private citizens because they are in the position of power. And I do think that animal control often abuses their position of power. Why don't they go after puppy mills or dogs chained outside during the winter? It seems that the local PD saves themselves quite a few bucks by confiscating well-bred dogs that they would normally purchase for thousands of dollars a dog. The conditions of the kennels were bad, but the dogs seemed in good shape and happy, something is not right here.


----------



## RebelGSD

This: "I think the story shows how easy it is for your dog to be taken from you and what little due process or recourse you have."

If some of my dogs had food 24/7, they would turn into into a barrel. And there are many people who don't leave water in the dog's crate during housetraining. So AC could walk into all these homes, confiscate perfectly healthy dogs for not providing food and water. Regardless of the fact that the dog gets fed twice a day and has access to water when the owners are at home.

Many would not have the money to fight this legally.


----------



## shepherdmom

RebelGSD said:


> The conditions in my local shelter are deplorable, similar to the kennels shown in the video. Photos were sent to county politicians to influence change, the public is being ignored. The shelter is under the health department, a total joke! And these are the people who issue kennel licenses and have the right to harass private citizens because they are in the position of power. And I do think that animal control often abuses their position of power. Why don't they go after puppy mills or dogs chained outside during the winter? It seems that the local PD saves themselves quite a few bucks by confiscating well-bred dogs that they would normally purchase for thousands of dollars a dog. The conditions of the kennels were bad, but the dogs seemed in good shape and happy, something is not right here.


I'm watching with interest this story because the rescue I help at was recently involved in getting some dogs back from a nasty situation.... Some dogs were sent to a sanctuary which turned into a hording mess and the officials including SPCA said they did not have the legal authority to do anything. How is it that they can come in here and take these dogs in this situation but ignore the other one in lots worse distress for years? 125 + dogs with serious vet issues, starving, locked in waste filled kennels far worse than what was shown in this case. I just don't understand. 

Here is what one of the dogs looked like when we got him and how he looks today.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

onyx'girl said:


> Jean, because these dogs were shown and held titles they had to have an identifiable ID....tattoo's or chips. snipped


Thanks, Jane!


----------



## Blanketback

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Unfortunately, because she was in possession of this property (because that's what non AR people see dogs as) and signed this property over, and now they are in possession of it - it appears those who have the gold, write the rules.


NO. That can't be true. That's why I'm content to call myself my dog's _owner_: so that he is legally mine, my property, my responsibility, all mine. Nobody can sign him over, because he isn't theirs. Heck, even my vet can't work on him if Joe Blow brings him in, lol - I know, I've had this discussion with him. I'd need to sign a consent form if something like that were to ever happen. I'm sorry Jean, but I completely disagree with your comment, and maybe it's a good thing that this is (rumored to be) going to court. Although it really upsets me, to think that it has to come to that.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

That's exactly it - she owned that property - the dogs. Or said she did allegedly when she signed them over, for whatever reason. So she gave up the rights to her property, and whether she owned them or not - that is where there is a problem from what I can see. 

If I had your dog here, and I was busted making meth, and they took the dogs because it's dangerous living conditions, and they said do you want to surrender them or fight for them, and I said surrender - are they going to ask are all these dogs yours? My life is ruined - do I really want to think about you?

I don't know - I really don't know but - possession here is a huge part of the law when it comes to property/things. Keep in mind, property is the opposite of what AR groups advocate for - very simple info here: Animals as Property - Why Shouldn't Animals be Treated as Property Life of Riley somewhere posted a nice happy medium between the two ideas. 

Anyway, that's what it looks like they are saying at the shelter - that this argument is between the people who gave her the dogs and her because she is the one who signed them all over. After that, they were property of the shelter. Doesn't matter what you call yourself in the eyes of the law - I could call them my biological children, but if they are hit by a car, it's not going to be vehicular manslaughter. 

It needs to go to court - for whatever reason, she signed them over, instead of getting an attorney - which is a huge expense and that may be why. But an arbitrator or someone needs to take a look and set up some policies moving forward as well. People need to always slow down once animals are safe, watered and fed. There is always this big feeding frenzy, often fueled by facebook and there needs to be a big stop button.


----------



## Blanketback

But if you were busted, and my dog was being held at AC, I'd think it should be no more complicated than releasing a car at the impound: pay the fees, grab your belongings that are rightfully yours (that you have documentation of, to prove legal ownership) and off you go. I'm not seeing how being in possession of my dog would have any bearing on who he actually belongs to.


----------



## shepherdmom

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Anyway, that's what it looks like they are saying at the shelter - that this argument is between the people who gave her the dogs and her because she is the one who signed them all over.


Wait though, I've seen several news articles including the one posted here by Celtic Glory that said that the dogs were seized when she refused to surrender.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Blanketback said:


> But if you were busted, and my dog was being held at AC, I'd think it should be no more complicated than releasing a car at the impound: pay the fees, grab your belongings that are rightfully yours (that you have documentation of, to prove legal ownership) and off you go. I'm not seeing how being in possession of my dog would have any bearing on who he actually belongs to.


I'm not either. But if someone is a plane flight away, and the person who had the dog doesn't keep good records...then they go to who has the dog? I am watching this and wondering a lot of things too. My opinion is that the dogs needed help, after that happened... I don't know what happened. 

shepherdmom - yeah, I have seen both and not sure if people understand the difference when they write these articles. 

Have they caught the guy yet?


----------



## LifeofRiley

If Dawn V. was not the legal owner of some of the dogs, I do not understand how she could have surrendered ownership of those dogs in the first place. Most surrender agreements, include the following language:

“By signing below, I hereby certify that I am the rightful owner, keeper, custodian, caretaker, of the animal who is the subject of this Owner Surrender Form. I hereby surrender any and all property rights to the animal described above. *I certify that no other person has the right of property to the animal.”*

I have no doubt that the shelter has been swamped with false ownership claims. But, I would hope that they are doing their due diligence in determining if Dawn V. was indeed the legal owner of all of the dogs. If she was not, I believe that the dogs that she did not own should be returned to their legal owner. If she was the legal owner of all of the dogs, then the shelter has no obligation to return the dogs to her.

I, for one, am happy that the dogs are no longer in that house. The conditions were deplorable. And, if I was the owner of one of those dogs, I would be glad they are out of there too… of course, I would expect that my dog would be returned to me.

It would be interesting to hear from someone who is familiar with property law in New York.


----------



## Betty

shepherdmom said:


> Wait though, I've seen several news articles including the one posted here by Celtic Glory that said that the dogs were seized when she refused to surrender.


I assumed that she intially refused, they seized and then she signed them over.

Can you imagine the boarding fees for 40 dogs?


----------



## Blanketback

This is the crux of the matter, IMO. If I'd been in charge of confiscating the dogs, I'd have been overjoyed that they were tattooed/chipped and thus had a trail for me to follow, in terms of determining ownership. So this is where it falls apart, and makes me question the motives behind the raid. Why wouldn't they _want_ to release the dogs to the rightful owners?


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

LifeofRiley said:


> I have no doubt that the shelter has been swamped with false ownership claims. But, I would hope that they are doing their due diligence in determining if Dawn V. was indeed the legal owner of all of the dogs.  If she was not, I believe that the dogs that she did not own should be returned to their legal owner. If she was the legal owner of all of the dogs, then the shelter has no obligation to return the dogs to her.


And what has so many up in a huff is that the shelter operator is on record saying he doesn't give a crap about anyone's ownership claims, and the shelter now owns them.


----------



## RebelGSD

The whole thing comes across as - many are happy to get their hands on well-bred, expensive dogs with little or no money, something that they could not otherwise afford. They could have required her to fix the conditions before getting the dogs back. This is really fishy.


----------



## Blanketback

I'm very curious as to what those actual dogs are worth, from a breeder's standpoint. They aren't your average BYB collection, that's for sure.


----------



## BowWowMeow

This whole situation is just nuts! I can't even follow it, it's so complicated. I would assume that with the amount of money (from the co-owned or foreign owned dogs) involved an investigation will be launched and the true story will eventually come out. 

I would never leave my dogs with a local boarding kennel; I can't imagine shipping them overseas to an unknown situation!


----------



## UFOH1

ID info-- ear tattoo before 1/1/12 and chip after. Breed wardens still inspect litters before 8 weeks as a rule. No dog will be showing in the SV shows unless tattooed or chipped depending on age.

Dawn did not surrender the dogs: 

"Verdeschi refused to voluntarily surrender the dogs so the authorities seized them; the dogs are now being held at the Columbia-Greene Humane Society."
On Monday morning, the Columbia-Greene Humane Society stated:
All 39 dogs were surrendered to the Columbia-Greene Humane 
Society/SPCA, and are available for adoption. 

Suspected breeder arrested, dozens of dogs seized in New York - National Dogs | Examiner.com

The quotes are directly opposite in the same article. Which is true? Or is the rescue pulling stuff out their ? and relying on their power? 

Did the rescue/SPCA offer Dawn a deal - 1 count for releasing the animals to them? Would that not be intimidation?


----------



## Blanketback

That's another thing that bothers me: only 1 count? Why? That arouses my suspicion.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> That's exactly it - she owned that property - the dogs. Or said she did allegedly when she signed them over, for whatever reason. So she gave up the rights to her property, and whether she owned them or not - that is where there is a problem from what I can see.
> 
> If I had your dog here, and I was busted making meth, and they took the dogs because it's dangerous living conditions, and they said do you want to surrender them or fight for them, and I said surrender - are they going to ask are all these dogs yours? My life is ruined - do I really want to think about you?
> 
> I don't know - I really don't know but - possession here is a huge part of the law when it comes to property/things. Keep in mind, property is the opposite of what AR groups advocate for - very simple info here: Animals as Property - Why Shouldn't Animals be Treated as Property *Life of Riley somewhere posted a nice happy medium between the two ideas. *
> 
> Anyway, that's what it looks like they are saying at the shelter - that this argument is between the people who gave her the dogs and her because she is the one who signed them all over. After that, they were property of the shelter. Doesn't matter what you call yourself in the eyes of the law - I could call them my biological children, but if they are hit by a car, it's not going to be vehicular manslaughter.
> 
> It needs to go to court - for whatever reason, she signed them over, instead of getting an attorney - which is a huge expense and that may be why. But an arbitrator or someone needs to take a look and set up some policies moving forward as well. People need to always slow down once animals are safe, watered and fed. There is always this big feeding frenzy, often fueled by facebook and there needs to be a big stop button.


Hi Jean,

Is this the article/link that you were thinking of?

LIVING PROPERTY: A NEW STATUS FOR ANIMALS WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Key quote:
"This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a *fourth category of property, living property*. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals"


----------



## UFOH1

Two dogs were adopted immediately by “people who we knew very well,” Perez said. “They took them right to the vet, they had them examined and bathed.”One of the dogs had recently given birth and he suspects that two or three of the dogs are in the early stages of pregnancy. If that’s the case, the pregnancies would likely be aborted when the dogs are spayed, he said.


What a sleeze in my opinion!


----------



## Blanketback

And there's another thing I'm wondering about: whose puppies are they? Did Dawn take deposits? If she did, will those contracts be honored?


----------



## UFOH1

Blanketback said:


> And there's another thing I'm wondering about: whose puppies are they? Did Dawn take deposits? If she did, will those contracts be honored?


The rescue has made it plain that no contracts, ownership will be honored.

Most likely no deposits were taken. Most breeders like to have the number and sex of the litter before taking deposits. I prefer to take deposits only after 6 or more weeks when the people can interact with the pups. So many things can happen to these young pups. I don't want any of my people getting hurt because a pup died for some unknown reason -possibly being stepped on by a new mother. Stuff happens to the best.

Who the parents are would be interesting to know. Contract are very open-- from my stud breeds for pick male/ female: keep the pups for showing my male at xyz show - so many variables. 

It can be whatever you write into a contract that both sign.


----------



## Blanketback

It was just another thing that would set huge alarm bells ringing for me, so I was wondering. I know lots of breeders do in fact take deposits, so she might too. And wouldn't that say a whole lot, if Perez would deny the contracts? The whole point is to save these dogs from neglect, not accumulate prize pups. Maybe, lol.


----------



## onyx'girl

Perez obviously had no worry about contracts or anything legal. Aborting litters to place the dogs is risky. And because the dogs were all placed within hours, not days....Dawn should add the lack of 'boarding' fees to her suit~if they threatened her with boarding fee's to coerce her into signing over the dogs. How many of these dogs actually were held at the shelter for more than 72 hours. I heard there is a hearing on Thursday, but don't know the details.


----------



## UFOH1

This would possibly be one of the sires:

*SG1 USA 2012 Dante vom Hunter Haus 
* 
www.pedigreedatabase.com


----------



## Blanketback

Were the litters in fact aborted? We need some proof that they were, because the word "likely" was used - which says that they'd like us to think they've been aborted but it might not be the case at all.


----------



## UFOH1

Aborting: as a long time breeder of everything from show horses, GSDs, Persian cats reproductive longevity is compromised when mother nature is interfered with. 

Breeding back to back keep the repro system and hormones working to support pregnancy. The idea of a reproductive "rest" is a fallacy and is provable via research. As with horses, dogs are best kept in production. While you and I are more selective -- how do you think puppy mills keep pumping pups out??? Because THEY KNOW! Now that you do, what are you going to do with that info?


----------



## Blanketback

I thought puppy mills kept pumping them out because that's how they generate income. It's not like they'd care either way about the welfare of the animals. 

If the litters are aborted, it will be done to spay the females, so their reproductive health isn't ever going to be an issue. My question is: why abort a valuable litter? Or better yet, did they?


----------



## onyx'girl

I doubt if we'll ever know...the fact that these litters don't have 'papers' attached doesn't have a lot of value. Supposedly the shelter adopts out dogs for $105 so not a big money maker. The money they've been making from this is the donations they've solicited thru the fb page and media after the story of feces and urine running down stacked cages and the plea for blankets/ funds for food rolled in. Just like the other seizures...same wording.


----------



## UFOH1

OH, if GSDs are so in decline as sitstay says --- why are they refusing to accept more adoption offers? 400 is quite a response for a breed that is not desired/


----------



## UFOH1

onyx'girl said:


> I doubt if we'll ever know...the fact that these litters don't have 'papers' attached doesn't have a lot of value. Supposedly the shelter adopts out dogs for $105 so not a big money maker. The money they've been making from this is the donations they've solicited thru the fb page and media after the story of feces and urine running down stacked cages and the plea for blankets/ funds for food rolled in. Just like the other seizures...same wording.


Will be interesting if the adoption fee goes up.


----------



## Blanketback

How do we know there are no papers attached? If the ownership changes hands, the papers do too. And if the stud dog was imported, then this must be a pretty special litter - that's quite an expense right there. 

And how do we know that those 2 dogs that instantly went to the special chosen homes weren't the pregnant bitches?


----------



## nktigger99

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Here is one question I have - are these dogs actually chipped? For positive - not just people saying they are?
> 
> But regardless, I agree - I don't think that anyone likes the procedures and policies (??? not sure what they are) of what happened after the dogs were taken, from what we are seeing from the outside.
> 
> Unfortunately, because she was in possession of this property (because that's what non AR people see dogs as) and signed this property over, and now they are in possession of it - it appears those who have the gold, write the rules.
> 
> I don't leave my dogs anywhere for even a day if I haven't been there, and frankly, they can't get anywhere without me - none are allowed to drive or call for a cab. They certainly are not going to go to some stranger that I know from the internet for even more time than that!
> 
> So unless people on this board and thread are possessed of extremely poor judgement in where they let their dogs go without them and for how long, I am confident that the people who are extremely worried about this happening to themselves will be okay.
> 
> If however, you do send your dog to another country with someone you know only over the internet and phone, then you need to add some additional safeguards. Increasing in degree by length of time. If you cannot say that you can do this, then perhaps it's not the best thing to do with your dog. If your dog is part of your business and not a pet, more layers are involved.
> 
> There is a giant thread in this section of the board - do you know where that dog is going. It doesn't just apply to this section of the board.



I left my dog, a Clumber spaniel, at a boarding faclity when I lived in Germany.....it was a facility used by many military members like us. The facilities were clean and all the dogs there looked good when we dropped off our puppy(she was around 6 months). I came back 3 days later to pick her up and she was not there.....the place had been raided and I had no idea where my dog was.....she was chipped and tattooed since she was from hungery It took two days to locate her and find out what happened. We did get her back....we found out that a person had made a complaint against the kennel. So yes this is a real fear for me....I remember crying and wanting to kill whoever took my baby.


----------



## onyx'girl

Blanketback said:


> How do we know there are no papers attached? If the ownership changes hands, the papers do too. And if the stud dog was imported, then this must be a pretty special litter - that's quite an expense right there.
> 
> *And how do we know that those 2 dogs that instantly went to the special chosen homes weren't the pregnant bitches?*


Perez was the one that said the litters would be aborted, I don't know why they would do that if they could make $ off the pups. 
I don't think Dawn gave up the papers when the dogs were confiscated. The stud from the Netherlands was there on a breeding contract, Dawn didn't own him.


----------



## onyx'girl

nktigger99 said:


> I left my dog, a Clumber spaniel, at a boarding faclity when I lived in Germany.....it was a facility used by many military members like us. The facilities were clean and all the dogs there looked good when we dropped off our puppy(she was around 6 months). I came back 3 days later to pick her up and she was not there.....the place had been raided and I had no idea where my dog was.....she was chipped and tattooed since she was from hungery It took two days to locate her and find out what happened. We did get her back....we found out that a person had made a complaint against the kennel. So yes this is a real fear for me....I remember crying and wanting to kill whoever took my baby.


I'm so glad you were able to get your puppy back. It is scary to think what could happen.


----------



## Blanketback

Just because Perez says something doesn't make it the truth. And wouldn't these dogs (not the import) be registered with the AKC? If they seized the dogs, could they assume ownership and get the papers reissued?


----------



## onyx'girl

No they couldn't get papers that way...especially if AKC is aware of Dawns situation. I hope the court hearing Thursday will bring charges against the shelter heads.


----------



## Blanketback

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking they could, but if they seize the dogs then they're assuming ownership of them. So as their owners, why couldn't they have the dogs registered in their names? I don't think AKC would be able to do anything other than issue the paperwork, if they can prove ownership.


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> Maybe I'm wrong in thinking they could, but if they seize the dogs then they're assuming ownership of them. So as their owners, why couldn't they have the dogs registered in their names? I don't think AKC would be able to do anything other than issue the paperwork, if they can prove ownership.


I would hope that the AKC would require the transfer form of the dog's papers before issuing any paperwork on the dogs. A very shady breeder could register the dogs using her own dogs' papers. It's crazy if you get caught, then you will be banned from the AKC. And with DNA testing, it is a lot easier to prove that the dog isn't out of another dog. But, if you only have a few litters, you do not have to DNA your males, so it is possible that they could get away with that. More likely would be applying for papers from a junk registry. Or, they will advertise them as what they were, puppies from a seizure, from a well-known breeder. And they may be able to turn a good penny. Pet people want a purebred, but they are not necessarily that worried about papers. If they understand why there are no puppies, but are sure the pup is purebred, they may be just as happy to pay quite a bit for the puppies. 

It could also be that all these people are members of the same group or club, and this came about because of some internal politics or back stabbing.


----------



## Blanketback

Thank you for chiming in , Selzer. You know something about these dogs, while I'm only guessing. I found this page, the North American WUSV Seiger Show from last fall. If you scroll down, one of the pictures is a puppy "Ava" that Dawn purchased. How much do you think this little sweetie is worth? And I wonder if Dante was shown there? These are huge money dogs, I'm guessing.

North American WUSV Sieger Show - Photo Galleries


----------



## onyx'girl

They are only worth what someone would pay. 
I still don't think the $ was the factor in the grand scheme of things here...it was a revenge/vendetta situation. 
Though, the shelter was getting in alot of donations. I have a feeling they'll be paying out way more than what they took in when this is all over with.


----------



## Blanketback

I'd love to say, "Yeah, screw 'em!" but ultimately it's only going to hurt the animals that really really need intervention. Every time we see corruption in the animal welfare organizations, we trust them less and less to have the animals' best interest at heart. The animals are left out in the cold. Again.


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> Thank you for chiming in , Selzer. You know something about these dogs, while I'm only guessing. I found this page, the North American WUSV Seiger Show from last fall. If you scroll down, one of the pictures is a puppy "Ava" that Dawn purchased. How much do you think this little sweetie is worth? And I wonder if Dante was shown there? These are huge money dogs, I'm guessing.
> 
> North American WUSV Sieger Show - Photo Galleries


I don't know anything about the situation, except that the reports are that the these are some top German show line dogs. It really depends on what the pup is worth, anywhere from $2500 and upwards. 

I don't like to hear about them aborting litters like that. That means spaying them. Even if their owners do get them back, they will be altered, and no longer good for show or for breeding, which is kind of like taking a Kentucky Derby winner and gelding him. 

As for people saying they would not leave their dogs anywhere, I do not believe the SV allows for AIs. It never used to, and it is possible that it has changed, but your best bet at getting a litter is natural breeding. If someone shipped their bitch to the stud, they may wait until an ultra sound can be performed before shipping her back. Or have them wait until she comes into season again. 

I understand the shelter situation, but still 75% of the dogs in shelters are mongrels. They should work on spaying and neutering all of them, get them out of hoarding situations, etc. But I don't necessarily believe this was a hoarding situation. And rushing to spay and spay/abort these puppies is kind of sad -- what are they trying to prove. You have 400 applications for 39 dogs, and you need to kill the litters? Why? 

This whole situation has me asking why? If the dogs are mangey, and have hips sticking out, and have open, untreated sores, and infections, then yeah, they need to get out of the situation. But if the dogs are in good condition, I don't know.


----------



## Blanketback

I don't know either. Anyone who says they do know should share their information, because obviously they know something we don't. Inside information would be great right now, instead of speculation.

Although I truly believe that Perez should be fired. I can't fathom why he'd deny ownership claims. I'll admit that people could be crawling out of the woodwork to claim some prestigious GSDs, but tough - that's his job to figure it out. If he can't hack it, then I guess the job's too much for him. And anyone found in collusion should be kicked off the board, too.


----------



## onyx'girl

I think the ones with inside information are keeping it to themselves because of upcoming litigation. They don't need it to be publicized at this time.


----------



## Blanketback

No, and I totally understand that. I'd be keeping quiet too. But this whole situation is infuriating, when you think about some of the truly horrific living conditions some animals are in - and then to see this. Like shepherdsmom said way back, why can't they step in when dogs are literally starving to death, but they can seize these? It does make you wonder. I wonder how many dogs froze to death in Greene County while they were busy with these fancy ones?


----------



## RebelGSD

Blanketback said:


> No, and I totally understand that. I'd be keeping quiet too. But this whole situation is infuriating, when you think about some of the truly horrific living conditions some animals are in - and then to see this. Like shepherdsmom said way back, why can't they step in when dogs are literally starving to death, but they can seize these? It does make you wonder. I wonder how many dogs froze to death in Greene County while they were busy with these fancy ones?


This!


----------



## UFOH1

One thing to keep in mind. These dogs may not be dual registered ie AKC. If you run a closed kennel, breed and show only in SV, you may never have anything to do with AKC.
Unless these dogs are accompanied by a Bescheinigung showing the transfer of ownership, they are going nowhere.


----------



## Msmaria

This article said this is the second raid and seizure of dogs in the past few weeks in NY. Does anyone else know about the other one?

HEADS UP New York!!! Seized Today and For Sale Tomorrow~ Well now, wasn’t that an amazing recovery for the abused animals!?! | Top Cats Roar...


----------



## Jax08

It was a breeder with Border Collie's that were left outside in negative zero weather with no, on little, shelter.

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-...-dogs-from-upstate-new-york-breeder-1.6871660


----------



## Lilie

Blanketback said:


> Maybe I'm wrong in thinking they could, but if they seize the dogs then they're assuming ownership of them. So as their owners, why couldn't they have the dogs registered in their names? I don't think AKC would be able to do anything other than issue the paperwork, if they can prove ownership.


I truly don't know if this could happen through AKC - But, years ago an Arabian horse was at a stable for training. The owner of the horse ended up in jail. The trainer went to a court (through a J.P.) filed for ownership as the 'property was abandoned'. The Judge granted ownership and the Judges ruling was sent to IAHA (The registry for Arabian Horses). They issued the registration papers to the trainer. 

For what it's worth - the horse lived many years with the trainer as his wife's show horse. He died a happy old man.


----------



## onyx'girl

There was a court hearing yesterday...this is Charlenes spin:

We are overwhelmed and appreciative of the support given to our
shelter,after the seizure of 39 German Shepherd Dogs from the home of Dawn Verdeschi.
For the record this was not an SPCA raid.
The sheriff's department responded to a number of local complaints and
were brought in to remove the 39 dogs and one cat. The day of the
seizure,Dawn signed over the ownership of all 39 dogs to us.
AS of the hearing yesterday the defendant has hired an attorney and is
refusing to cooperate or surrender the animals to us for placement,our offer
on the table was to have Dawn assist us in identifying individuals ,who had
direct ownership or co-ownership interest in any of the seized dogs,so that
they could be rightfully returned.
She refused.
At this point,our shelter has incurred expenses in excess of $10,000.00
We have staff overtime,veterinary care, medical treatment ,including
medicines,special food,vaccinations,worming,grooming ,bathing,and housing in our
NEW facility which is not yet open to the public.
WE had to hire an attorney to represent us ,and are requesting that the
defendant post a bond of $25,000.00 to assist us in the maintenance of the
dogs ,until the disposition of the case is final.
Trust that the dogs are in good and knowledgeable hands.
You can go online _www.cghs.org_ (http://www.cghs.org/) to see the photos
,We did NOT post these until our unsuccessful hearing yesterday.
Thank you to so many for your moral and financial support,with a situation
very challenging for a small ,non-profit shelter
thanks
Charlene Marchand,Chairperson,Board of Directors


----------



## Blanketback

onyx'girl said:


> The day of the
> seizure,Dawn signed over the ownership of all 39 dogs to us. AS of the hearing yesterday the defendant has hired an attorney and is refusing to cooperate or surrender the animals to us for placement,our offer on the table was to have Dawn assist us in identifying individuals ,who had
> direct ownership or co-ownership interest in any of the seized dogs,so that they could be rightfully returned. She refused.
> 
> At this point,our shelter has incurred expenses in excess of $10,000.00 We have staff overtime...
> 
> thanks
> Charlene Marchand,Chairperson,BoardofDirectors


What? Dawn signed the dogs over, then she didn't...well, she either did or she didn't - so why is there such a discrepancy there? C'mon, this is really getting ridiculous. 

And inquiring minds want to know exactly how much of that tidy little sum has gone into overtime hours. You know, if it wasn't for that fact that there are innocent animals involved, I'd find this whole thing laughable.


----------



## UFOH1

ONYX'GIRL - Do you have a link for the hearing? 


"We have staff overtime,veterinary care, medical treatment ,including
medicines,special food,vaccinations,worming,grooming ,bathing,and housing in our
NEW facility which is not yet open to the public." *I would like to see an ACCOUNTING of funds received for this fiasco. *


----------



## onyx'girl

No I don't and there were no photo's of the dogs that I could find. I'm glad the hearing was "unsuccessful"....it shows there was some concern on the judges end.
Though this article may play into the whole thing: 
http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/KY-Court-Rules-Pets-Are-Property_Andrews-0910.asp


----------



## Blanketback

My next question: why does Charlene make a point of saying, "For the record this was not an SPCA raid" and yet the link provided clearly identifies SPCA? Why are they distancing themselves? Actually, _who's_ distancing themselves? How bizarre.


----------



## angelas

Because people didn't roll over and just accept the authorities statement they may be trying to distance themselves so they aren't caught in the poop ball that is going to roll downhill soon.


----------



## shepherdmom

onyx'girl said:


> No I don't and there were no photo's of the dogs that I could find. I'm glad the hearing was "unsuccessful"....it shows there was some concern on the judges end.
> Though this article may play into the whole thing:
> U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES PETS ARE PROPERTY, compiled by B. Andrews, editor


Interesting. Thanks for posting this link.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

onyx'girl said:


> No I don't and there were no photo's of the dogs that I could find. I'm glad the hearing was "unsuccessful"....it shows there was some concern on the judges end.
> Though this article may play into the whole thing:
> U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES PETS ARE PROPERTY, compiled by B. Andrews, editor


Nice post. Thanks for that link.


----------



## Blanketback

This is starting to make some sense. Thank you to a member who PMed me to explain that it could have been a police dept. request to remove the dogs. But the reality is, last month Governor Cuomo signed legislation giving municipal government more power, to enact their own laws.
Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation to Strengthen Oversight of Pet Dealers in New York State | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

By giving them more power, it also opens them to more scrutiny, since (like in this case) people will expect them not to abuse this power.

If anyone was wondering about the other seizure, this is a report by the rescue that took some of the dogs:
A Report on the 35 Border Collies from Flat Creek in Sprakers, NY

People will be expecting to see that kind of documentation in this case as well. I know most everyone here would be furious if their dogs were pumped full of wormers and vax, to pad a vet bill. 

I'm still angry that the story is that on Day 1, the dogs' ownership was signed over, but on Day 8 they magically were not. I really hate being lied to.


----------



## Msmaria

onyx'girl said:


> There was a court hearing yesterday...this is Charlenes spin:
> 
> We are overwhelmed and appreciative of the support given to our
> shelter,after the seizure of 39 German Shepherd Dogs from the home of Dawn Verdeschi.
> For the record this was not an SPCA raid.
> The sheriff's department responded to a number of local complaints and
> were brought in to remove the 39 dogs and one cat. The day of the
> seizure,Dawn signed over the ownership of all 39 dogs to us.
> AS of the hearing yesterday the defendant has hired an attorney and is
> refusing to cooperate or surrender the animals to us for placement,our offer
> on the table was to have Dawn assist us in identifying individuals ,who had
> direct ownership or co-ownership interest in any of the seized dogs,so that
> they could be rightfully returned.
> She refused.
> At this point,our shelter has incurred expenses in excess of $10,000.00
> We have staff overtime,veterinary care, medical treatment ,including
> medicines,special food,vaccinations,worming,grooming ,bathing,and housing in our
> NEW facility which is not yet open to the public.
> WE had to hire an attorney to represent us ,and are requesting that the
> defendant post a bond of $25,000.00 to assist us in the maintenance of the
> dogs ,until the disposition of the case is final.
> Trust that the dogs are in good and knowledgeable hands.
> You can go online _www.cghs.org_ (http://www.cghs.org/) to see the photos
> ,We did NOT post these until our unsuccessful hearing yesterday.
> Thank you to so many for your moral and financial support,with a situation
> very challenging for a small ,non-profit shelter
> thanks
> Charlene Marchand,Chairperson,Board of Directors


So basically, they are saying they should be allowed to steal other people's dogs and then have the people they stole them from' pay for it. Ridiculous.i

Although I did see the pictures and they do look pretty bad.


----------



## selzer

Msmaria said:


> So basically, they are saying they should be allowed to steal other people's dogs and then have the people they stole them from' pay for it. Ridiculous.i
> 
> Although I did see the pictures and they do look pretty bad.


They've been trying to pass legislation that would force all breeders with x number of dogs, something like 10 or 25 to purchase a bond (size dependent on the number of dogs you own), just in case they come and take your dogs from you.


----------



## Blanketback

I can't get over the "expenses in excess of $10,000" because there were only 39 dogs, and some of them were puppies, still nursing. How can you spend that kind of money in _one_ week? Over a grand a day...on less than 50 dogs...that's some pretty poor management of funds, if you ask me.


----------



## Msmaria

selzer said:


> They've been trying to pass legislation that would force all breeders with x number of dogs, something like 10 or 25 to purchase a bond (size dependent on the number of dogs you own), just in case they come and take your dogs from you.


I hope it doesnt pass, otherwise that may be a business in itself. Can you imagine. I run a business like this. Have someone call in complaints. Seize 10 healthy dogs and then charge them $500 a day


----------



## Blanketback

Is there such a thing as "Breeder's Insurance" because that sounds like it could come in handy.


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> Is there such a thing as "Breeder's Insurance" because that sounds like it could come in handy.


One can get some type of lawyer insurance. My brother did that for a while. You pay a standard fee, and then if someone falls down on your sidewalk, or sues you for liable or something, the lawyer's fees are covered.

Most of the breeders I know are spending their money on their dogs though. We are supposed to be a country where we are innocent until proved guilty, and where we are free of illegal searches and seizures, though. We shouldn't have to pay a bond in case we run afoul of the law. And we shouldn't have to keep a lawyer on the payroll just in case someone wants to steal our dogs.


----------



## Blanketback

No, I should have put the little sarcastic guy at the end of that statement. I think it would be horrible if people had to pay an extra premium just to cover their butts in case someone, somewhere, decides that this is the day they're sorry they ever decided to breed.


----------



## LifeofRiley

An update has been posted on the shelter website that includes more details and photos of the conditions those dogs were living in as well as the medical care that was required.

I encourage everyone to take a look at those photos. I don't see how anyone would have wanted those dogs to be left in those conditions.

http://cghs.org/


----------



## Msmaria

LifeofRiley said:


> An update has been posted on the shelter website that includes more details and photos of the conditions those dogs were living in as well as the medical care that was required.
> 
> I encourage everyone to take a look at those photos. I don't see how anyone would have wanted those dogs to be left in those conditions.
> 
> http://cghs.org/


I did see the pics earlier this morning and agreed they are pretty bad. They should have put Dawn on notice and given her a time frame to get the conditions fixed. The dogs did not look unfed, but they do look like she was not able to care for them all appropriately and they were living in cramped dirty crates and kennels. 
What I really disagree with is that the dogs that are owned by people other than this facility owner should be returned to their rightful owners and not given to the police department or adopted out. Dawn should have then been given a week or time to correct the situation for her dogs with followup. If she didnt, then people would be more on the side of the SPCA to seize her dogs.


----------



## Jax08

Agreed Msmaria..agreed. If I left one of my dogs in a kennel from morning to morning, that is about what the kennels would look like. Animals make a mess quickly, especially in a small area.


----------



## Blanketback

Thank you for that link, LifeofRiley. It's impossible not to feel sorry for the dogs, if that's how they're living. I can't imagine how terrible the owners who left their dogs there must feel. I know myself, trying to find kennel space at the last minute for one of mine - some places think this is adequate. I passed on 2 that were very similar to this set-up, minus the shredded paper and poo buildup.


----------



## Msmaria

Sad to say, Ive volunteered at a few rescue places that were just like this when you came in early in the morning. But understandably the owner wanted to rescue as many dogs as she could and didnt have enough space. Our jobs were to exercise them so they could get as much time out of the crates as possible. 

Some other places I volunteered at, I had to stop volunteering because some of the people there were so caught up "jumping on the bandwagon" of some poorly treated dog that would get them some sympathy and attention that they would forget all about the other poor dogs that needed them more. Sometimes and I say sometimes taking these dogs from their owners are like taking them from the frying pan and putting them in the fire.


----------



## jquinn

looks like there's an update (with photos) on the shelter's website: http://www.cghs.org/

pretty gross conditions for high $$ show dogs


----------



## Blanketback

The trouble is, this isn't some sort of atrocity. This is pretty typical housing conditions when you have lots of dogs on hand. I've seen it in rescue too. I've checked out kennels and this is what they're offering for boarding conditions. It's not unusual. Would I leave my dog like that? No. But if I hadn't gone to physically inspect the kennels beforehand, before dropping my dog off for boarding, then I could have inadvertently.


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> The trouble is, this isn't some sort of atrocity. This is pretty typical housing conditions when you have lots of dogs on hand. I've seen it in rescue too. I've checked out kennels and this is what they're offering for boarding conditions. It's not unusual. Would I leave my dog like that? No. But if I hadn't gone to physically inspect the kennels beforehand, before dropping my dog off for boarding, then I could have inadvertently.



I think they're atrocious, especially the puppies. How can you raise a litter like that?

I think they should have given her some ultimatums and follow up though, and shouldn't have just snatched her dogs.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

Wasn't there a rumor going around previously that the weather conditions at the time were poor and maybe the dogs weren't always kept in those conditions? I.e brought in from the cold and put in crates as opposed to left out in larger runs?

Was that ever verified as true or not?


----------



## Blanketback

I don't mean that they weren't foul and filthy - those pictures are a good indication that the place needs a thorough cleaning. But maybe people need to get out more, and see what others are up to. This is normal crappy (literally) housing and this is what you can expect half the time, by my own personal inspections.


----------



## selzer

For sure, the weather conditions were awful in NY at the time. I am not sure if there were outside runs though. I can see this sort of thing happening, if the dogs are normally out, and suddenly they are having to spend a lot of time stuck it tiny crates. 

Maybe the better, larger puppy area was filled with crates for the outdoor dogs and that is why the puppies are being kept in such a horrible state.


----------



## Msmaria

I agree this place needed some cleaning, bad weather or not is no excuse for the amount of trash in that place and the other areas that needed cleaning. However it doesnt mean the dogs werent cared for.
But again put her on notice. Some people need a wake up call ,as years of being complacent can creep up on you.

Does anyone know who the other people arrested where? ie. staff, family?


----------



## Blanketback

It does seem like issuing a warning would have been the reasonable approach.


----------



## Lilie

I think she should be held responsible for the living conditions of those dogs. She should have realized she was in over her head due to the weather conditions. She should have started sending dogs back to thier owners long before she was in over her head. She was a respected breeder, she should have reached out to her circle of 'GSD' friends for housing needs, especially for her pregnant bitches. Those pups were born in that filth. It didn't happen over night. She should have bitten the bullet and send some of her own dogs out to be boarded. She had options. She ignored them. The dogs suffered. 

No excuse can be made for the stud dog with pus oozing out of it's face. That didn't happen over night. It looks as though no attempt was made to clip it and keep it clean. Even us 'pet' folk wouldn't allow our dog's head to get into that condition with out at least making an attempt to help it heal and keep it from getting infected. 

I do agree that the agency that seized the dogs didn't handle this correctly. I do think she should have gotten a stern warning with a limited amount of time to correct the situation. But I don't think she has any excuses that would have kept me from rubbing her face in the same crap my dog was living in.


----------



## Blanketback

I agree Lilie, there's no excuse for infected wounds. But I'd need to be certain that this indeed was one of her dogs, and not a stock photo. After all, the statement says that it wasn't an SPCA raid, and yet there's a man wearing that SPCA jacket in one of the photos. What the heck is going on here?


----------



## Msmaria

Blanketback said:


> I agree Lilie, there's no excuse for infected wounds. But I'd need to be certain that this indeed was one of her dogs, and not a stock photo. After all, the statement says that it wasn't an SPCA raid, and yet there's a man wearing that SPCA jacket in one of the photos. What the heck is going on here?


I think , sometimes im wrong..lol, they meant that the police called the SPCA in to remove the dogs. That this raid was not initiated by the SPCA.


----------



## selzer

I think it was her dogs. Not a stock photo. That ear pussing was deplorable. If that was the only dog someone had, and animal control was called, would they have seized the dog or would they have given a warning, with a requirement that the dog be taken to the vet? 

One dog seemed to have a problem like that. Mostly the dogs looked in pretty good shape. So much so, that it is hard to fathom how they stayed as clean as they were in such filth. It suggests to me that the indoor arrangement was temporary. 

I hope so. I don't like to think of dogs spending weeks or months in a travel crate.


----------



## shepherdmom

Omg those pictures are awful. Those poor dogs. I did feel bad for the out of town owners caught up in this. Now I just feel bad for the dogs. It didn't get that bad overnight. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lilie

There is just a point where a person has to say, "This isn't working." I'm certainly not saying the dogs have been living in filth for weeks or months or days. I don't know this lady or her operation. But it is obvious that what she was doing, just wasn't working. Not for her clients. Not for the dogs. Not for her. 

Look at what this forum has done for members who needed dogs transported. Dogs rehomed. Dogs fostered. Most of us are normal Joes. I simply can't believe that if she had reached out to the GSD community (since she is a well known breeder & showed her dogs) that she couldn't have found some assistance. 39 dogs including 2 litters of puppies - that would not have been an impossible task.


----------



## selzer

shepherdmom said:


> Omg those pictures are awful. Those poor dogs. I did feel bad for the out of town owners caught up in this. Now I just feel bad for the dogs. It didn't get that bad overnight.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


This was a breeder. 

Not everyone goes to the breeder to check out the situation. Maybe someone that no one had ever heard of, but this person, I guess, shows her dogs and has some dogs that do very well, so she is known in the dog fancy.

I guess some people you would never expect to have really horrendous conditions. 

But boarding a stud dog/leasing a stud dog or a bitch, is not the same as dropping your pup off so you can go on a cruise. They may have the dog for several weeks or several months.


----------



## selzer

Lilie said:


> There is just a point where a person has to say, "This isn't working." I'm certainly not saying the dogs have been living in filth for weeks or months or days. I don't know this lady or her operation. But it is obvious that what she was doing, just wasn't working. Not for her clients. Not for the dogs. Not for her.
> 
> Look at what this forum has done for members who needed dogs transported. Dogs rehomed. Dogs fostered. Most of us are normal Joes. I simply can't believe that if she had reached out to the GSD community (since she is a well known breeder & showed her dogs) that she couldn't have found some assistance. 39 dogs including 2 litters of puppies - that would not have been an impossible task.



Lilly, people in the rescue community are rescuers. They will foster and they will step up for the dogs. Show people are a little different. Yes, they often do foster and rehome dogs. But they can also be interesting. 

I know of a situation where a lady helped tons of people through the years get into dogs, shows, showing, training, breeding, clubs, matches, trials, etc. When this lady had a serious medical emergency and was in the hospital for a while, came out, and one of the people she mentored came over and demanded that she do something about two of her dogs, and when this person refused, she called Animal Control on her. They came out running to check out the horrible breeder, and found everything clean and the dogs healthy. 

Rescue people aren't paranoid about breeders the way that breeders are about shelters and rescue people, and in some cases other breeders. I can understand why she wouldn't reach out to others if the situation was very temporary -- like exacerbated by the weather and maybe having her other half hit the road. 

Surrendering dogs to a shelter or rescue will probably get you a bad name all over, whether you are surrendering retired breeding bitches or pups that didn't sell, or wash outs with health problems. Suddenly your name is Mud everywhere. I can see not doing that for a temporary situation. 

Also, shelters and rescues don't just accept dogs from people. If there isn't room, they will not take them period. And they have to save room for strays the dog warden might bring in. A lot of rescues will not take a dog from an owner. They want to rescue them from high kill shelters. If a breeder did contact either they might agree to take some of the dogs only if they have the remaining dogs spayed. I mean really. If you have a hoarding situation going on, clearing out 2/3rds of the dogs isn't going to help if the other 1/3 is going to be having more puppies. Breeders do not see this avenue as something they could ever do. Other breeders dump their older bitches regularly and could care less. 

I don't know what the answer is. I heard the lady was going through a really difficult time. But I have no clue what all that was about. I think when you are in the thick of things it is sometimes hard to think clearly and make the best decisions.


----------



## Lilie

I understand what you are saying, Sue. But I wasn't talking about rescue. 

We had a bad flood here years ago. The Arabian Horse community opened their barns up to folks who had barns under water. We took care of our own. When Ike was forecasted to hit, once again, people opened up their barns for those who were re-locating their horses to safety. No boarding fees - you bring your own feed and come quick. We took care of our own as well as other breeds. 

If this situation was just due to adverse weather conditions, there should have been an attempt to re-locate. If only until the weather allowed for better living conditions. 

Hec Sue, you live in bad weather conditions. You moved your pups into your home. I've no doubt even on the worse poopy days, your dogs didn't live like that. And if you had a bitch about to whelp, you'd NEVER allow them to be born in filth. You'd be calling, "All hands on deck!!!" and do something!

Again - I totally agree that the breeder should have gotten a warning and given a chance to clean up. I totally agree this was a gross abuse of power. But the breeder fouled things up all on her own.


----------



## Msmaria

Lilie said:


> I understand what you are saying, Sue. But I wasn't talking about rescue.
> 
> We had a bad flood here years ago. The Arabian Horse community opened their barns up to folks who had barns under water. We took care of our own. When Ike was forecasted to hit, once again, people opened up their barns for those who were re-locating their horses to safety. No boarding fees - you bring your own feed and come quick. We took care of our own as well as other breeds.
> 
> If this situation was just due to adverse weather conditions, there should have been an attempt to re-locate. If only until the weather allowed for better living conditions.
> 
> Hec Sue, you live in bad weather conditions. You moved your pups into your home. I've no doubt even on the worse poopy days, your dogs didn't live like that. And if you had a bitch about to whelp, you'd NEVER allow them to be born in filth. You'd be calling, "All hands on deck!!!" and do something!
> 
> Again - I totally agree that the breeder should have gotten a warning and given a chance to clean up. I totally agree this was a gross abuse of power. But the breeder fouled things up all on her own.


I thought I read it was another breeder that turned her in. Not sure how true that is.
We need more breeders like Selzer.


----------



## onyx'girl

Msmaria said:


> I thought I read it was another breeder that turned her in. Not sure how true that is.


supposedly the sherrif dept received several complaints(according to Charlenes update)...yet I read that the landlord was the one that discovered the mess. The landlord owns a dog boarding facility.
I'm glad they finally shared the photo's. Though, the dogs don't look emaciated or dehydrated, they looked like they just wanted out of that mess. Sad for the one that was injured.


----------



## selzer

Lilie said:


> I understand what you are saying, Sue. But I wasn't talking about rescue.
> 
> We had a bad flood here years ago. The Arabian Horse community opened their barns up to folks who had barns under water. We took care of our own. When Ike was forecasted to hit, once again, people opened up their barns for those who were re-locating their horses to safety. No boarding fees - you bring your own feed and come quick. We took care of our own as well as other breeds.
> 
> If this situation was just due to adverse weather conditions, there should have been an attempt to re-locate. If only until the weather allowed for better living conditions.
> 
> Hec Sue, you live in bad weather conditions. You moved your pups into your home. I've no doubt even on the worse poopy days, your dogs didn't live like that. And if you had a bitch about to whelp, you'd NEVER allow them to be born in filth. You'd be calling, "All hands on deck!!!" and do something!
> 
> Again - I totally agree that the breeder should have gotten a warning and given a chance to clean up. I totally agree this was a gross abuse of power. But the breeder fouled things up all on her own.


Flood or fire -- that's not your fault though. In dog breeding EVERYTHING is your fault. I've seen it on this thread. Even though in the last 20 years there has only been a handful of nights that it was truly too cold to leave the dogs out, and no days (given they have an appropriate house and straw), this year has had many. But evenso, people on here say, she shouldn't have had that many -- it was too many for her to care for. Her fault. 

Well now, I think she did use the rental property to bring in dogs that had outdoor runs. I don't know how true that was, but that was what I had heard. I think you don't realize how bad it will be until you are in the thick of things, and then you are so busy trying to put out fires that you don't have time to organize a mass exodus of your dogs. 

Certainly you wouldn't have time to visit the kennels of all your dog breeding buddies, to ensure they will be better off there. And then there is the possibility of introducing disease. Everyone is worried about that when you have young puppies.

Dog breeders are usually at capacity, either in space or in how many they can handle. This has been a HARD winter. I would be hard-pressed to care for even one more. And I had Tori not too long ago. But yeah, I have 2 in/out kennels, and those are for Odie and Lassie in one and Jenna and Karma in the other. Babs is up in the house 24/7 (except when she is with me like now). Which means 9 more have to come in and live in crates if it is below zero. In out, in out, in out. 

8 in the room where the in/outs go, and a ninth crate in the Living Room for Hepsi. 

When a GSD lets go in their crate it is HORRIBLE. They run around in it. And STINK! I thought I was going to die. Or kill Gretta or both. 

I whipped the crate pan out, and threw it outside and put her in a kennel while I let everyone else in and out to potty. That took long enough for one or two to decide that they had waited long enough -- thankfully no poop though. Then outside in sub zero and a pail of hot water trying to clean it up enough so I could bring it in and go to town on it with Clorox Whipes. Only so I could let her back in again. 

And I don't have half the dogs that lady has. 

No, I'm not ready to call in the reserves. With three times the number of dogs, I can see things going from bad to horrendous. And still, you have to think, it's February, this winter is not going to last forever.

I really don't like having winter litters because the pups can't go in and out. And it is stressful on the dam to have other dogs running in and out of the room even if they can't get to her. If I had a litter it would not be in that kind of filth, no. I would have had two crates in my Living room and she would have had 1/3 of the sun room with a whelping box. And there is 4' panel up so that the other dogs are not running in bothering her. But it would have been that much harder, letting dogs in and out every three hours while trying to whelp a litter. And having the bark up a storm driving the momma dog crazy.


----------



## shepherdmom

selzer said:


> Rescue people aren't paranoid about breeders the way that breeders are about shelters and rescue people, and in some cases other breeders. I can understand why she wouldn't reach out to others if the situation was very temporary -- like exacerbated by the weather and maybe having her other half hit the road.
> 
> Surrendering dogs to a shelter or rescue will probably get you a bad name all over, whether you are surrendering retired breeding bitches or pups that didn't sell, or wash outs with health problems. Suddenly your name is Mud everywhere. I can see not doing that for a temporary situation.
> 
> Also, shelters and rescues don't just accept dogs from people. If there isn't room, they will not take them period. And they have to save room for strays the dog warden might bring in. A lot of rescues will not take a dog from an owner. They want to rescue them from high kill shelters. If a breeder did contact either they might agree to take some of the dogs only if they have the remaining dogs spayed. I mean really. If you have a hoarding situation going on, clearing out 2/3rds of the dogs isn't going to help if the other 1/3 is going to be having more puppies. Breeders do not see this avenue as something they could ever do. Other breeders dump their older bitches regularly and could care less.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is. I heard the lady was going through a really difficult time. But I have no clue what all that was about. I think when you are in the thick of things it is sometimes hard to think clearly and make the best decisions.


I think shelters and rescues are getting a bad rep here. I don't know about other areas of the country but in this area and in the short time I've been helping in rescue; I've seen people that don't necessarily like each other come together time and time again to help dogs. Yes we may be full and turn down dogs (so we don't get overwhelmed and into trouble ourselves) but we do are darnedest to help. We have a network of volunteers, transporters, vets, fosters etc. that we will do our best to get care for a dog in trouble. We courtesy list dogs, we can help get donations for food or vet bills, many are willing to volunteer to come out and walk dogs or clean poo or whatever needs to be done. We call around and find other rescues who might have spots open and can help arrange transportation. Most put aside personal feelings and egos to help the dogs. We are in this for the animals. I notice a lot of rescuers may come across as brisk because we've heard every excuse in the book. That doesn't mean we won't help. It just means that you have to communicate to us you are really in trouble and willing to work on a solution. We do this for the dogs.


----------



## LifeofRiley

I have not read one credible source that verifies that this was a temporary housing solution due to extreme weather. 

I have heard some, admittedly, equally unverified accounts that the landlord had given Dawn V. warnings to clean up the property as far back as June and that Dawn V. shut off all contact with the landlord.

So, again, it is not at all uncommon that it takes weeks, months or more for the true facts to become available. Typically, court documents are the best source. And, as it sounds like Dawn V. will be going to court to face animal cruelty charges, those details will likely be available after those proceedings.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I don't think anyone, or atleast I haven't read where anyone, feels that the seizure was unwarranted..The dogs should have been removed from those deplorable conditions.

My beef is, if some of those dogs are owned by other people, and they can prove it, those dogs should NOT be adopted out, they should be 'on hold' until their true owners can be verified and then turned over to those owners. 

While other charges may be pending, she was only charged on one count so far. Which is ridiculous to me, why wasn't she charged for more than one thing?


----------



## onyx'girl

probably because they coerced her into 'plea-bargaining' to sign over the dogs with the condition of only one count. I don't see any other reason for it. 
There was supposed to be a hearing again today?


----------



## shepherdmom

onyx'girl said:


> probably because they coerced her into 'plea-bargaining' to sign over the dogs with the condition of only one count. I don't see any other reason for it.
> There was supposed to be a hearing again today?


Did the dogs get signed over? I keep seeing conflicting info on this.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JakodaCD OA said:


> My beef is, if some of those dogs are owned by other people, and they can prove it, those dogs should NOT be adopted out, they should be 'on hold' until their true owners can be verified and then turned over to those owners.


It is my understanding that none of the dogs have been adopted. And, in the quote from Charlene that Onyx Girl posted yesterday, it does indeed seem that the shelter is trying to get dogs that were not owned by Dawn V, or co-owned, back to their owners/co-owners. Dawn V., according to that quote, has not been cooperative in that effort.

Of course, I don't know the source of that quote, so I can't comment as to its credibility.

The shelter, IMHO, has no interest in maintaining the costs of boarding and care for dogs that have legitimate owners. I imagine they are just as eager as everyone else to determine if some of the dogs have legal owners and to return them once that has been established. They do have the responsibility to make sure that ownership claims are valid and that takes time, particularly if Dawn V. is not being cooperative.


----------



## UFOH1

First this FYI: SHELTER & RESCUE IMPORTS, TRAFFICKING IN DOGS, by Linda Witouski I know this happens for a fact!

Since my post were lost ( or have a mind of their own ), I will post thoughts in small post.

As far as infected wounds: With heavy fur it is possible not to spot this as soon as one would like. Having numbers works against discovering this the same day it happened. Cats are a super example of these hidden abscesses until they blow.

I understood this to be a temp, emergency placement in the vacant rental due to the extreme weather. New moms were staying with Dawn in the heated home she owned. 

The trash could be from the owner of the property storing crap - we don't know.

Not all rescues take in animals that are the most needy. Recently a person needed to place his horse. He could not feed him and was being evicted. The rescue told him unless he gave them $600 they would not take the horse. REVIEW BOARD RULES ON PSEUDO SWEARING what use are you as a rescue???

"Columbia-Greene Humane Society/SPCA is dedicated to the protection, humane treatment, and well being of all animals. This mission will be accomplished by our commitment to community outreach, humane education and prevention of cruelty to animals. We do not euthanize animals for space constraints and do not receive any federal, state, or county funding." Directly from their site. Therefor it has been brought up that they are a "private" rescue and have no arrest/ seizure authority under the law. But it also brings up what is their source of funding....

More but too tired...


----------



## Msmaria

I think the majority of us are keeping an open mind and if things come out where she was abusive etc, our opnions may change. Right now I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. I would like to know what caused things to get to this point and hoping its something workable. To have this many dogs, I cant even imagine.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Blanketback said:


> I don't mean that they weren't foul and filthy - those pictures are a good indication that the place needs a thorough cleaning. But maybe people need to get out more, and see what others are up to. This is normal crappy (literally) housing and this is what you can expect half the time, by my own personal inspections.


I am stunned that anyone has seen anything like this. I have only seen it in pictures from seizures. 

If I were to walk into something like this - whether there were dogs or not - I would attempt to seek help for the individual.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm with Jean, those conditions were absolutely filthy, the crates themselves were filthy not just the bottoms, but sides/tops , months if not years of having nasty looking crates = unacceptable.

I have a wire crate I've used for 13 years sitting in my dining room and it sure doesn't look like that, nor is it rusted out. 

I think the shelter is "backtracking", cause in the beginning they sure were spewing off about 'where' the dogs went, not checking for chips, and their basically 'who cares who owns the dogs, she signed them over they were in her possession".

Hopefully again, those dogs will go to their rightful owners as it should be, and the ones that need new homes find good ones.


----------



## Blanketback

Did anyone read the report I linked to the other seizure?

This is what I'm talking about, serious bad stuff going on where the animals truly need outside help. Really terrible conditions with really sick dogs. I want these Greene County people to look at that, and then think long and hard if they're cut out for this kind of work. It's gruesome stuff, and if dogs kept in dirty crates gets them this upset, then I'd imagine seeing the 'real deal' is going to make them faint. They're not help anyone here, except maybe themselves, if they didn't issue Dawn a 'clean up' order before seizing her dogs.

And no, I'm not condoning the filth. Who wouldn't think that was disgusting? But since I actually have seen something like this before, and since I'd just read the Flat Creek report before adding to this thread, my head was in a different place. I thought Cuomo was trying to help the animals in _dire circumstances_ with his new legislation, not let officials pick and choose which dogs they'd like to acquire.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

I'm just concerned that if the word "deplorable" gets thrown around too much more that we may spawn a new drinking game.


----------



## Blanketback

Lol, it's ok - they'll get a computer in their new shelter and they'll be able to google synonyms. Oh, but then they'll have to answer emails inquiring about lost or seized dogs. Hmm, what a dilemma.


----------



## shepherdmom

TinkerinWstuff said:


> I'm just concerned that if the word "deplorable" gets thrown around too much more that we may spawn a new drinking game.


:spittingcoffee:


----------



## Betty

Not sure if the link to these pictures have been posted or not.

cghs125's Photostream


----------



## Blanketback

Yes, I think this will be the 3rd time now.

Has anyone considered what will happen to other dogs in the future? If this Greene County animal welfare group comes across dogs that are emaciated and covered in parasites, hair gone to mange....are they going to be considered 'lost causes' and PTS? Where do shelters draw the line? Even the "no kill" shelters _do_ kill animals, they just find good reasons to do it. I think we should all reserve judgement in this case until all the facts are revealed.


----------



## Betty

Did not mean to be redundant. I did a quick look at the last few pages and did not see it.

I think if you want to change Animal control procedures you start at your local level. If you are concerned about dogs at shelters being put to sleep because of mange, parasites, there are many things you can do locally that can change that. Shelters are often a number games, dogs are euthanize to make room for the new ones that they have to hold for so many names. Only the most healthy adoptable ones make the cut.

I admire you for reserving judgement, you are a better person then I am. For me those pictures said it all and yes I will judge anyone that allowed dogs to be housed in those conditions.

Our first priority (in my opinion) is to protect our dogs. We protect them from parasites, from being hit by a car. We protect them from Animal Control by housing them properly.

It amazes me the motives of Animal Control is put under so much scrutiny and speculation while the breeder is given a wait and see pass. There is more outrage directed at Animal control then the breeder that allowed these magnificent creatures to live like that.

And the actions of this breeder has hurt every small hobby breeder of any breed. Look at those pictures, and read the comments on the internet with the eye of someone that owns Fluffy. We look like a group more concerned with property rights then the welfare of our dogs and if I was Fluffy owner I would be fighting for more regulation of all breeders.

To Mr and Mrs Public this was suppose to be one our very best. International shows. Titled dogs. It's obvious we are unable or unwilling to police our self.


----------



## Blanketback

No need to admire me for reserving judgment, it's just the way my brain works. I need factual information to make decisions, and I can't be spoon-fed tiny pieces. 

For example, I could set my dollhouse on fire and claim an arsonist torched my home, if I framed the pictures properly. I'd get lots of sympathy.


----------



## Betty

Blanketback said:


> No need to admire me for reserving judgment, it's just the way my brain works. I need factual information to make decisions, and I can't be spoon-fed tiny pieces.
> 
> For example, I could set my dollhouse on fire and claim an arsonist torched my home, if I framed the pictures properly. I'd get lots of sympathy.


A truer statement never typed. And post it properly and we would probably do a fundrasier for you.

There are things that animal control did or was reported to do/say that give me pause. But you know what? The dogs including pups aren't sleeping in their own filth tonight. 

And if I was animal control and took part in the sizure of that many dogs i would be downright giddy at the thought that some if not all were adoptable and would not getting the juice. How often does that happen in our shelters? And yes I would be contacting local police departments to see if any of those dogs were placeable. 

And how many pregnant dogs are spayed every day in shelters across the country? 

There are questions I would like to see answered too. I just think the people that are ready to give the breeder the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in should also give it to animal control.

People failed those dogs to put them at such risk. And animal control is far down the chain of responsibility. 

All just my opinion of course.


----------



## Blanketback

Lol, a fundraiser would be wonderful. But my insurance company would rake me over the coals! 

I'm just very skeptical by nature, and every time these people open their mouths, they seem to get me going even more. Like, why are they saying Dawn isn't cooperating with IDing the dogs? This is amusing to me, honestly. Why did I put a chip in my dog?


----------



## trcy

Betty said:


> Not sure if the link to these pictures have been posted or not.
> 
> cghs125's Photostream


I would call that living in deplorable conditions. That is just disgusting. Those poor dogs.


----------



## Betty

Blanketback said:


> Lol, a fundraiser would be wonderful. But my insurance company would rake me over the coals!
> 
> I'm just very skeptical by nature, and every time these people open their mouths, they seem to get me going even more. Like, why are they saying Dawn isn't cooperating with IDing the dogs? This is amusing to me, honestly. Why did I put a chip in my dog?


Your doll house in insured???? 

I don't know if Dawn is cooperating or not, and if she is her definition of cooperating may be different then that of Animal Controls.

Or Animal control may be taking the stance that any co owner who allowed their dog to be housed in those conditions may be just as guilty. Ignorance not being a defense, and due diligence being an obligation.

I don't know. 

I do know when I was a child abuse investigator for the state I would often read about cases in the media and would have to wonder if it was the same crime scene I was at. 

I was even quoted once on a case. Only problem with that was it was not my case, I was on vacation and out of state, and number 2 talking to the media would of gotten me fired.


----------



## Blanketback

I don't know either, Betty. I'm just glad that this forum is comprised of the type of people that it is - we all love our dogs, we're concerned about other dogs, and we all seem to be able to balance our initial shock with a decent portion of curiosity that keeps this thread from becoming a hotbed of personal emotional outrage.


----------



## onyx'girl

Durham dogs under court order, stalling the adoption process - NEWS10 ABC: Albany, New York News, Weather, Sports


----------



## Blanketback

Thank you for the update, Jane. 

"The Greene County Sheriff's office has confirmed that the Humane Society has received calls from people claiming to own some of the dogs and that the sheriff's office is looking into the matter.

An attorney for the Humane Society declined to comment."

I wish the attorney hadn't declined to comment, because I find it extremely discouraging that the matter is now being taken care of by the Sheriff's office, and I'd like to know why. Why can't GCHS/SPCA self-police?


----------



## onyx'girl

The whole thing still stinks. You'd think they'd try to get this over with swiftly, but if it means there will be eventual justice, then I can see the reason for the delay. The longer this drags out, the worse it is for the dogs. I still wonder if they s/n them....obviously whatever comes out of Perez's mouth is subject to be questioned.


----------



## Blanketback

If they did s/n, then I'd think they'll have some pretty heavy settlements to deal with. These people aren't fools, they know what these dogs are worth, and they know they need to be intact.


----------



## shepherdmom

At least the court is taking the co-ownership claims seriously and putting the adoptions on hold.


----------



## onyx'girl

Woman faces 35 new charges in Durham dog case, Sheriff seeking m - NEWS10 ABC: Albany, New York News, Weather, Sports

Law #356 http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AI/AILaws/Article-26.pdf


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

Thanks for the updates. I still haven't seen photos that look that bad. And I wonder how long my dog can be without access to free choice food and water before it's considered neglect? 2hours, 4hours?


----------



## LifeofRiley

TinkerinWstuff said:


> Thanks for the updates. *I still haven't seen photos that look that bad.* And I wonder how long my dog can be without access to free choice food and water before it's considered neglect? 2hours, 4hours?


Really? Interesting.


----------



## BowWowMeow

TinkerinWstuff said:


> Thanks for the updates. I still haven't seen photos that look that bad. And I wonder how long my dog can be without access to free choice food and water before it's considered neglect? 2hours, 4hours?


Did you look at the pictures? My dog is home alone for up to 9 hours a day but he is lying on a nice orthopedic bed, not living in his own poop. Those conditions were filthy and the dogs should not have been living like that.


----------



## LifeofRiley

BowWowMeow said:


> Did you look at the pictures? My dog is home alone for up to 9 hours a day but he is lying on a nice orthopedic bed, not living in his own poop. Those conditions were filthy and the dogs should not have been living like that.


Exactly! I find it very disturbing that some members here think that the conditions these dogs were found in is in anyway acceptable. Mind boggling!


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

BowWowMeow said:


> Did you look at the pictures? My dog is home alone for up to 9 hours a day but he is lying on a nice orthopedic bed, not living in his own poop. Those conditions were filthy and the dogs should not have been living like that.


Mine lived like a king as well with a dog bed and a big yard to roam. Every dog doesn't have it as good and you should see the **** wild animals have to suffer with. 

A lot of assumptions are being made from a couple photographs and without any details.


----------



## LifeofRiley

TinkerinWstuff said:


> Mine lived like a king as well with a dog bed and a big yard to roam. Every dog doesn't have it as good and you should see the **** wild animals have to suffer with.
> 
> A lot of assumptions are being made from a couple photographs and without any details.


I hope you realize that anyone who actually follows animal neglect/welfare/abuse cases, knows that this is a classic argument of people who could really care less about what happens with the animals in a particular case. 

But, sure, have fun sharing your stories nonetheless.


----------



## BowWowMeow

We are talking about these pictures, right? cghs125's Photostream


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

LifeofRiley said:


> I hope you realize that anyone who actually follows animal neglect/welfare/abuse cases, knows that this is a classic argument of people who could really care less about what happens with the animals in a particular case.
> 
> But, sure, have fun sharing your stories nonetheless.


People in this country have life so easy that they have trouble putting things in context. Here, we work for a better quality of life (bigger TV etc), while in other parts of the world there are whole countries where the population doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.

I see one poop and some shavings. The kennel crate could have been cleaned 2hrs previously and look like that now. They were better off in that photo than had they been left out in the snow & cold. I might feel differently if someone involved had documented where the owner had been visited and warned on previous occasions.

Sorry, but I am prone to see the better in people and to give them the benifit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. I'm not convinced the owner should be hung on the cross based on the evidence presented this far.

You just might wish there were more folks like me when you're accused of some something or some misunderstanding.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm shocked you see nothing wrong with the pictures in the link that Ruth posted above..

There is way more than one poop and some shavings,,those wire crates themselves are RUSTED and SKANKY, besides what is in them.

I have had a wire crate in my dining room for 13 years, and it sure doesn't look like that...

I'm not condemning the owner/breeder either, I think she got in over her head/maybe has some mental issues and just let things go..


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm shocked you see nothing wrong with the pictures in the link that Ruth posted above..
> 
> There is way more than one poop and some shavings,,those wire crates themselves are RUSTED and SKANKY, besides what is in them.
> 
> I have had a wire crate in my dining room for 13 years, and it sure doesn't look like that...
> 
> I'm not condemning the owner/breeder either, I think she got in over her head/maybe has some mental issues and just let things go..


The wire crate in your living room probably isn't hosed down on a regular basis. I've never seen a dog complain about the paint color or quality of their surroundings. My neighbors dog would come to my yard and intentionally roll in my dogs crap and our Corgi would roll in anything dead she could find. 

And again; I don't think we've had any confirmation if those were temporary living conditions or not because the cops nor the humane society has not shown where they've visited previously and issued warnings.


----------



## onyx'girl

There is still somewhat of an agenda on the shelters end of this. They have tripped up themselves with their actions during and after the seizure. Supposedly they blocked Dawn from entering the house Saturday, arrested her Sunday, arraigned her Monday. The dogs were on lockdown from Saturday morning through Sunday afternoon. Only some dogs were removed Sunday, the rest Monday. They took pics on Monday of the dogs left there for almost 3 days. So who was withholding food and water? And the contradiction by the shelter saying they weren't involved, but the Sherrif dept was the one handling the situation? I don't get that statement either.


----------



## GSDolch

OK, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to how people keep their dogs, not all dogs have a pampered life, but are still taken care of.

However.....and I will go ahead and say now, I expect a warning and will gladly take a slap on the wrist, but ANYONE who thinks that those pictures are OK, need to not have dogs at all. People who think those conditions in those pictures are just fine don't deserve dogs.

This is not a simple day or two of not getting washed out...those floors are caked in nasty dirt/feces.


----------



## Blanketback

And I still wonder how gullible I'd have to be, to believe people with an agenda. 

“Thankfully, the way it looks right now, is the worst that came out of it is some of these dogs might have ear infections and some malnutrition, which is something that’s going to take a little bit of time to get them back up where they’re suposed to be,” said Greene County Sheriff’s Lt. Adam Brainard. “*But nothing too serious*, and we’re thankful for that.”

http://www.thedailymail.net/the_dai...5109-8e05-e012bb1fd3f0.html#user-comment-area

Totally opposite from the GCHS/SPCA's version. Now it seems that one of the dogs will actually die unless it undergoes further surgery. Where did I get that? From their web page, of course: "The dog has now gone through one surgery, and will most likely need to go through more surgeries to save his life."

I don't even know if those dogs were really living in those crates, since I don't believe a thing told to me at this point. That's right: lie to me a few times, and that's what happens. Mistrust is a horrible thing.


----------



## selzer

onyx'girl said:


> There is still somewhat of an agenda on the shelters end of this. They have tripped up themselves with their actions during and after the seizure. Supposedly they blocked Dawn from entering the house Saturday, arrested her Sunday, arraigned her Monday. The dogs were on lockdown from Saturday morning through Sunday afternoon. Only some dogs were removed Sunday, the rest Monday. They took pics on Monday of the dogs left there for almost 3 days. So who was withholding food and water? And the contradiction by the shelter saying they weren't involved, but the Sherrif dept was the one handling the situation? I don't get that statement either.


If this is true, and the dogs were in the house from Saturday until Monday, than those crates would definitely look completely foul. Sorry, but a dog can poop a LOT in 48 hours, and will look awful too. 

If that is true, and they closed off that house, and they can keep us from caring for our dogs for 48 hours in temperatures that are down around 0F or below 0F, then yes, our dogs are going to be suffering. We are all in trouble. All of us. Diane, if they blocked you for 48 hours, how would your dogs be doing? BowWow, what about you? Would your dog be rushing out to eat snow when they were released??? 

Many of us leave dogs in crates while we go to work. If we came home after work to let our dog out, and found police there that said we could not enter the property, and explained their were dogs in there, and they told us that we were not allowed to enter the property, what will these dogs do but soil in their crates? They are going to eat that poop, and then they are going to get a loose stool from that, and possibly barf bile. They are going to turn around and around and leak in the crate and the feces is going to spread all over. 

2 days in a crate for a dog is inhumane. 

And there is a ring of truth in this statement. I have heard of raids where the cops were there and would not let the people into the dwelling.

I have to say, that with an EPI dog that is skinny, 48 hours without food or water or enzymes, and she might be dead. If this happened, someone should go to jail.


----------



## selzer

GSDolch said:


> OK, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to how people keep their dogs, not all dogs have a pampered life, but are still taken care of.
> 
> However.....and I will go ahead and say now, I expect a warning and will gladly take a slap on the wrist, but ANYONE who thinks that those pictures are OK, need to not have dogs at all. People who think those conditions in those pictures are just fine don't deserve dogs.
> 
> This is not a simple day or two of not getting washed out...those floors are caked in nasty dirt/feces.


Maybe with your GSD, you can do a test for us. Give it a day's food and water, and leave it in that crate for 48 hours and come back and take pictures of it and the crate. Depending on what you feed, GSDs poop tons. Oh, and not you, but have strangers walk through the house a couple of times -- don't give the dog any food or water, or let it out, but if it has pooped, it will spin around in there trying to figure out who you are and where their person is. 

Then, maybe we would know how much caked on poop there should be in a crate.


----------



## crackem

I am NOT going to defend how those dogs were kept. It is too many and it was not clean by any means. I think it was made worse by the fact that a livable home was turned into basically a junk drawer with dog crates spread throughout. Had this been a Shed with crates in a row and not a kitchen table or chairs or an obvious "home" at one point it wouldn't have looked quite so bad. Still not good by any means, but I think it being in what was once a home puts a certain twist to it.

anyway, after a couple days of not being cleaned, sawdust, chips, newspaper and dog waste can add up. These were obviously not completely cleaned daily for a while. I don't think just a couple days. Things have been adding up for a while in those crates.

I don't care the crates were rusted. Take them outside, hose them off, etc and you'll have rusted crates. I didn't ever see the dogs stacked on top of each other, but maybe I missed it

anyway, too many dogs for one person and those conditions shouldn't be acceptable. I know they can live on a dirt floor and don't need AC and fluffy beds and all that, but come on.

Anyway, besides one dog, the actual condition of the dogs themselves didn't look all that bad. But the living conditions are going to overshadow that.

That said, this whole story stinks from both sides. Lots of backtracking going on by the raiders. One story says only 35 of the 39 are in spca possession? where are the others? were they the ones given to the police dept practically within hours of the seizure? The dogs were property of the SPCA, then the a few days later, the "rescue" says the SPCA wasn't a part of the seizure, now the SPCA says the dogs may have other owners? The rescue has had some of their activity stopped by the courts on 2 occassions now?

Half of those involved in the seizure and placing of dogs appear to be GSD breeders themselves??? and some are saying they shouldn't be spayed and neutered prior to being adopted out? I wonder why, and who's at the top of the list for adoption? 

It stinks, both ways. and confusing


----------



## Blanketback

This whole thing is incredible. What the heck happened, and will the whole truth ever come out? I have my doubts. 

I will say, looking at those pictures and making snap judgments about them: I was happy to see the 'holey roller' on the counter. It's always nice to see dog toys, even if they are jumbled in with other stuff. 

And come on other GSD people: if these dogs were so badly taken care of, and lived their lives in crates as they've said, how would they act? Would they be so friendly when they were released? How about that picture with the lady holding the baby puppy with the dam right beside her face? LOL, that's gutsy with an unsocialized bitch!


----------



## onyx'girl

Another thing that is an issue, IMO...is that Dawn won't be arraigned until March 25th. When livestock is involved they should expedite the procedures for the welfare of the animals. So this shelter will be incurring more 'debt' even if the dogs are being fostered, there will be boarding fees assessed, no doubt.


----------



## Blanketback

That's a month away. What happens to the pregnant dams in the meantime? Who's responsible if anything happens to these puppies? They'd better have the deliveries on video, unedited, to have a truthful count of the births. They can't abort them because the dogs don't belong to them.


----------



## onyx'girl

I wonder if they already did? How else could they add up that 10k worth of vetting?


----------



## Blanketback

It wasn't 10k in vetting exclusively. That figure was the total spent already, which also included their overtime hours paid to staff. Don't we all love our overtime? Lol.


----------



## Msmaria

I guess there will be more overtime and surgery costs, delivery costs, hand feeding the pups because the mother was too ill to take care of them costs. This shelter and staff could make quite a bit of money between donations and these various costs. Poor dogs.


----------



## Blanketback

Poor dogs is right! And if they do have loving owners, they don't deserve to be in limbo like this. I don't know what I'd do if my dog was stuck in this debacle.


----------



## Msmaria

Blanketback said:


> Poor dogs is right! And if they do have loving owners, they don't deserve to be in limbo like this. I don't know what I'd do if my dog was stuck in this debacle.


I agree. Does anyone know if any owners have obtained lawyers to get their dogs back?


----------



## onyx'girl

I think they have attorneys working on it. But everyone except the shelter staff is keeping a very low profile. Dawn did go on the PDB forum to defend herself.


----------



## Msmaria

onyx'girl said:


> Dawn did go on the PDB forum to defend herself.



What did she say. Sorry was MiIA from the forum a couple of days


----------



## onyx'girl

You'll have to go on there and read it~if you want to waste the time, lol. She was defending herself/she loves her dogs, they were well taken care of, blah,blah blah.... 
I'm not defending Dawn whatsoever, but am following this because of the way the authorities are handling it.


----------



## selzer

People who have 1-2 children do not understand how people with 6 or 8 or 10 can possibly have the time, energy, and even love for all of them. But the fact is, people with more children then average, and people with more dogs than average can and do love them all, individually. 

I can believe that the crates were a temporary solution to a very temporary problem, and that two days stuck in crates without access to any outdoor toileting can make crates look that terrible. It does not take weeks for poop to cake. A well-fed dog can produce plenty of poop to make the crates look miserable in that much time. 

She has a lot of dogs, but if they aren't all hers, and some would be shipped back to their owners, and she had another person helping her, this is maybe not as terrible as the pictures make it out to be.


----------



## Msmaria

onyx'girl said:


> You'll have to go on there and read it~if you want to waste the time, lol. She was defending herself/she loves her dogs, they were well taken care of, blah,blah blah....
> I'm not defending Dawn whatsoever, but am following this because of the way the authorities are handling it.


I agree. 

I really want to be open minded about this. Just read that they didnt allow her to enter until after a day or so. If they really cared about the dogs why would they do that. Was it to make the situation look worse. I dunno, just so sorry those poor dogs are paying the price.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Blanketback said:


> I've checked out kennels and this is what they're offering for boarding conditions.


ANY place that keeps dogs in those conditions should be shut down.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

selzer said:


> I can believe that the crates were a temporary solution to a very temporary problem, and that two days stuck in crates without access to any outdoor toileting can make crates look that terrible. It does not take weeks for poop to cake. A well-fed dog can produce plenty of poop to make the crates look miserable in that much time.
> 
> She has a lot of dogs, but if they aren't all hers, and some would be shipped back to their owners, and she had another person helping her, this is maybe not as terrible as the pictures make it out to be.



So you think this is acceptable? That THIS could have happened in just TWO days??










In my opinion, anyone that thinks THAT is not terrible has a questionable sense of cleanliness.

And remember - if the dogs were locked on those crates without ANY food or water then the output would have tapered off after the first 24 hours.


----------



## selzer

Lauri & The Gang said:


> So you think this is acceptable? That THIS could have happened in just TWO days??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, anyone that thinks THAT is not terrible has a questionable sense of cleanliness.
> 
> And remember - if the dogs were locked on those crates without ANY food or water then the output would have tapered off after the first 24 hours.


Which means the dog would probably eat it, get liquid poop, and then it would all cake on. Who says it's not terrible, but, yeah, I have seen the crate after Dolly dumped in it and turned around and around. It was awful. And the smell would knock you out. Woke me from a sound sleep. It was all over the sides of the crate. I had to get it out of the house clean it, outside, then bring it back in and clean it more. 

A dog left for 48 hours in a crate will be frantic. They will be tearing at it with their toenails and be frustrated, turning around and around in the poop, lying in, it, scratching. It will look terrible.

As for output tapering off, a well fed dog can go for a couple of days without food. Wolves do. Their system will continue to produce poop until it is empty. Then if the dog eats it, it will produce more poop. If the dog is trying to hold it because it does not want to poop in its crate, it may be loose when the dog finally lets it out. There was a bucket in that crate. The dog probably had water and a day's feeding, so it only missed one meal. I don't think poop would taper down until it had missed a couple of feedings.

But the only way to know for sure is to run a test. I'm not willing to do that to one of my dogs. I just think it could be possible. Especially if we aren't talking about feeding the highest quality raw diet to reduce intake and therefore reduce output.


----------



## Blanketback

That crate is disgusting, and anyone who tried to put my dog in there would______. You can fill in the blank, because you probably feel the same way. But please tell me how you know *for a fact* that this particular crate was used by Dawn to house her dogs?


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

selzer said:


> Who says it's not terrible,


You did.



> A dog left for 48 hours in a crate will be frantic. They will be tearing at it with their toenails and be frustrated, turning around and around in the poop, lying in, it, scratching. It will look terrible.


It would not looked caked - like the dog had been laying in it for days. It would not be compressed into a thick mat in the bottom of the crate.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

selzer said:


> She has a lot of dogs, but if they aren't all hers, and some would be shipped back to their owners, and she had another person helping her, this is maybe not as terrible as the pictures make it out to be.


I added the color to point out where you said it.


----------



## selzer

Blanketback said:


> That crate is disgusting, and anyone who tried to put my dog in there would______. You can fill in the blank, because you probably feel the same way. But please tell me how you know *for a fact* that this particular crate was used by Dawn to house her dogs?


If that crate was in the home, with the rather fresh looking poop in it, than it would have had to have had a dog in it. But put any dog in a travel crate for 48 hours, and you are going to have a serious mess. 

Most of my dogs are in wire crates when they are all in. But I have a travel crate like this one in my living room where Hepsi sleeps. 

A Dog owner should be able to go through and take their own pictures at the time that the people come, not 48 hours after the dogs have been forced to sit in their own filth.


----------



## Blanketback

For all I know, they found that crate in a landfill somewhere.


----------



## selzer

Lauri & The Gang said:


> You did.
> 
> 
> 
> It would not looked caked - like the dog had been laying in it for days. It would not be compressed into a thick mat in the bottom of the crate.


You know this how?

Take what I said out of context. Fine. I don't care, if you don't like it LEAVE, right? Whatever. 

I was saying about the number of dogs she had, the fact that the bitter cold winter -- worse one in 20 years here, bringing the dogs in for warmth, and with another helper to manage them, it may not have been as bad, considering the dogs were left in those crates for 48 hours. 

If you look at what I posted before, the conditions were atrocious or deplorable, and people made fun of me for that. Whatever. But add 48 hours of poop machine into it, and that could make all the difference. 

All along people were wondering why the dogs didn't look terrible, matted, etc. A dog living for weeks in a crate like that would be terribly matted and nasty. If a dog was living for two days in its own filth it would need a bath, but it might look like the dogs we saw coming out of that place.


----------



## selzer

Laurie, it looks like you have 10 critters, If you put all your 10 critters in travel crates and headed off to the store to buy some raw food for them, and when you got home, the police were there, and they told you that you were not allowed to enter your property. 

If 2 days later, they went in and took the dogs out of there, do you think your dogs would have pooped or peed in that time. Would your house smell like a bed of roses? Would your dogs be trying to eat snow when they came out of the house?

The fact that there was feces is definitely a statement to the fact that she did NOT deny them food and water.


----------



## Blanketback

Anyone with a bit of sense would have taken a fresh poo and squished it into the floor, to make it look like it was used recently. I like the overturned bucket - how many people use these for watering their dogs? I know lots of people who do, and they always use a carabiner to fasten it to the mesh - not leave it loose to get knocked over in under 5 minutes. Sorry.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Disregarding the poop caked in the crates, look at the wires/metal on those crates, they are skanky/rusted, and UNCLEAN..No way a dog in one of those crates did that in 48 hours.

I'll say it again, I have a wire crate that is 13 years old IN MY DINING ROOM..it has NEVER looked like that, it is not rusted/skanked up with dog hair,, 

She may not have denied them food and water, but she sure was a SLOB and very very unsanitary when it came to taking physical care of them.

It sounds like some are making excuses for the conditions? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, because I am shocked that ANYONE would think that stuff happened in 48 hours. But then again, who knows, maybe people LIVE like that, and she just got caught/turned in.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

selzer said:


> Laurie, it looks like you have 10 critters, If you put all your 10 critters in travel crates and headed off to the store to buy some raw food for them, and when you got home, the police were there, and they told you that you were not allowed to enter your property.
> 
> If 2 days later, they went in and took the dogs out of there, do you think your dogs would have pooped or peed in that time. Would your house smell like a bed of roses? Would your dogs be trying to eat snow when they came out of the house?


Yes, they WOULD have gone to the bathroom. But there would not be matted hair stuck to the doors and and layers of stool/? at the bottom of their crates.

Sorry but that does NOT happen in just two days.


----------



## Blanketback

Why would it be considered making excuses to want to know the truth? I don't think I'm being unreasonable at all, in questioning things, after the way this has all played out.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

absolutely the truth should get out there..Pictures don't lie tho..and there is no way those dogs got in that condition in 48 hours, nor those crates..


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

And I really cannot believe ANYONE would try to defend those conditions.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Lauri me neither, but like I said, maybe there are people out there living like this so it's not really a big shocker to them?


----------



## Blanketback

Lol, pictures sure can lie. The only way that they would hold up under scrutiny is if the photographer is actually honest. So now you have to ask me to believe this crew, after all their contradictions. That's not going to happen.


----------



## selzer

JakodaCD OA said:


> Disregarding the poop caked in the crates, look at the wires/metal on those crates, they are skanky/rusted, and UNCLEAN..No way a dog in one of those crates did that in 48 hours.
> 
> I'll say it again, I have a wire crate that is 13 years old IN MY DINING ROOM..it has NEVER looked like that, it is not rusted/skanked up with dog hair,,
> 
> She may not have denied them food and water, but she sure was a SLOB and very very unsanitary when it came to taking physical care of them.
> 
> It sounds like some are making excuses for the conditions? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, because I am shocked that ANYONE would think that stuff happened in 48 hours. But then again, who knows, maybe people LIVE like that, and she just got caught/turned in.


People DO live like that. Watch Animal Hoarders, it will have your skin crawling. You know what else will get you going, they don't come and remove the 100 cats on the very first visit. They give the owner time to give them up. They give the owner time to clean shtuff up. They check back with them and try to get them to release a few more. Talk about disgusting. Hundreds of chickens IN THE HOUSE. Does animal control come and yank them out of there? No. 

Why did they here, because they were valuable dogs. The only reason. Any pet owning, animal hoarding idiot would have been given a chance to clean it up, and be given a warning. 

I looked at the hair. The only thing I could think of is that when the weather got bad, she pulled a crate or two out of a shed and didn't clean them up real good -- no poop, but some hair, rust, etc. That's just a guess or a possibility. 

How fast poop cakes is something I rather not find out though. I have brought dogs in from a run in the slop and had them spritz over the outside of crates, and then put them in, and yes, they leave foot prints in them, while they dry off. If you are letting a bunch of dogs in and out, you aren't cleaning their paws and giving them a bath before putting them in their crates. I am not surprised with there being mud splatters. 

But it's the amount of time between when they shut off her access to when they got the dogs out of there and took the pictures -- all of us would fail an inspection if they left our dogs cooped up in the house for 48 hours. That's insane, and there were puppies stuck in those crates. I would be beyond livid. 

If that is how this actually went down. Will we really ever know?

Front page news, and television coverage happens, but if they need to retract something it goes on page D8 in fine print.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm not saying I think the Rescue has clean hands either, and sure pics can be staged, I seriously doubt tho, the shelter people went in there and loaded up those crates with dog poop, old, rusty, crates , and said "OH lets throw the puppies in this skanky looking crate"..


----------



## Jax08

I guess a person could debate the filth till the cows come home. The picture that did me in was the massive amounts of pus running down the side of that dogs head. I don't think anyone can deny that does not happen overnight. For an infection to be draining like that, it's been brewing awhile.

The sticking point in the case for me is the HS denying the claims of legal owners. In an article, the president of the HS, vehemently denied that any legal owners claim was legitimate. "Charlatans" that would have to take any issue up with Dawn. The HS legally owns the dogs. 

Every pet owner should be terrified at what they are trying to do. The precedent that could be set would affect every pet owner. The fact that the HS has lost two hearings tells me there is a basis for the claims of these people. I hate to see a good HS go out of business but if this is all true, I hope they sue the **** out of every person involved.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

speculation can go on and on, 

Who said , which I may have missed along the line here, that those dogs were left there unattended to for 48 hours before they were removed? Was it in an article? Just asking, cause I don't recall seeing it.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Michelle I agree with you I guess that's why I never take a vacation, cause I won't put my dogs in anyone else's hands


----------



## Blanketback

Has anyone ever messed around with a sebaceous cyst? I did, and it got infected. My vet told me to never fool around with them for this reason. They get nasty like that, and I'm guessing if it was on a leg, the dog would be able to clean it up. I'm not defending anything here, except the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."


----------



## gsdsar

selzer said:


> People DO live like that. Watch Animal Hoarders, it will have your skin crawling. You know what else will get you going, they don't come and remove the 100 cats on the very first visit. They give the owner time to give them up. They give the owner time to clean shtuff up. They check back with them and try to get them to release a few more. Talk about disgusting. Hundreds of chickens IN THE HOUSE. Does animal control come and yank them out of there? No.
> 
> Why did they here, because they were valuable dogs. The only reason. Any pet owning, animal hoarding idiot would have been given a chance to clean it up, and be given a warning.
> 
> I looked at the hair. The only thing I could think of is that when the weather got bad, she pulled a crate or two out of a shed and didn't clean them up real good -- no poop, but some hair, rust, etc. That's just a guess or a possibility.
> 
> How fast poop cakes is something I rather not find out though. I have brought dogs in from a run in the slop and had them spritz over the outside of crates, and then put them in, and yes, they leave foot prints in them, while they dry off. If you are letting a bunch of dogs in and out, you aren't cleaning their paws and giving them a bath before putting them in their crates. I am not surprised with there being mud splatters.
> 
> But it's the amount of time between when they shut off her access to when they got the dogs out of there and took the pictures -- all of us would fail an inspection if they left our dogs cooped up in the house for 48 hours. That's insane, and there were puppies stuck in those crates. I would be beyond livid.
> 
> If that is how this actually went down. Will we really ever know?
> 
> Front page news, and television coverage happens, but if they need to retract something it goes on page D8 in fine print.




I get that they denied her access. But where does it say NOONE had access? I would assume animal control was taking care of the dogs. I have a hard time believing that they locked the door and not a single person was allowed in or out and the dogs were not fed and watered and relieved for 48 hours. Because if that's the case, AC should be investigated as well. That is neglect.

I am not a naturally tidy person. I am a horrible housekeeper. It's been freezing where I live as well. I work full time too. Not a single poop in any of my dogs crates. Are the crates sparkling and new. Nope. Are they caked with feces? NO. There is no excuse for those conditions. None. 

My concern in this situation is for the coownership, the dogs there for breeding, with owners that are now having to fight to get their dogs back. Owners that had been unaware of the conditions. That's a failure. 

This woman should be ashamed. If she was overwhelmed, she should have reached out. I have had too. And response was wonderful (lost power for days over last summer, house was 90 degrees) one quick post on FB and my dogs were with friends with AC and I was at my moms. To leave animals in these conditions is inexcusable. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer

JakodaCD OA said:


> absolutely the truth should get out there..Pictures don't lie tho..and there is no way those dogs got in that condition in 48 hours, nor those crates..


And you know this, how? 

Sorry, but I have never left a dog in a small crate for 48 hours, so I don't know. But I have cleaned a crate or two after a dog let go. I can just imagine how bad it could get in 48 hours. Poop dries fast, and it is foul when you have one that jumps up and down and turns around and around. 

Anyone with more than an ordinary number of pets, which includes a lot of people on this forum, can be in trouble if they wait for days denying access to where the animals are. 

Well, it's down to 5 degrees now, I got to go and let the critters in again. You all have fun. But I think it smells. It seems a lot of stuff about this particular seizure smells. I don't know this person. I don't know what she is going through. But I do not understand why she was not given an opportunity to correct her situation. The dogs did not seem to be in terrible condition. The one dog had a wound festering. It couldn't have looked any better after being untreated and stuffed in a crate for 48 hours. 

If you want to know why we are paranoid, check out the HSUS site, how to turn in a puppy mill, and they go step by step on what to do. Always hold the worst looking dogs, line up the television cameras, etc. If you can't find anything wrong with the dogs, look for problems with the structure, and check their tax returns -- turn them into the IRS. It is all there.


----------



## Jax08

Blanketback said:


> Has anyone ever messed around with a sebaceous cyst? I did, and it got infected. My vet told me to never fool around with them for this reason. They get nasty like that, and I'm guessing if it was on a leg, the dog would be able to clean it up. I'm not defending anything here, except the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."



A sebaceous cyst in his EAR? and yes, I have dealt with one...again, they do not happen overnight.


----------



## selzer

Sent from Petguide.com Free App[/quote]
Scroll down on these. Not all of these were seizures. These 39 dogs were in no way in the shape of the critters in these homes:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ani...tBIOcyQHYvYGQCQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=608

No, that doesn't make it ok. But it doesn't make sense why they went right for the kill on these dogs, except that these dogs will have 400 applications.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

and you know this is staged how? You know she was denied access how? You know the dogs were left alone for 48 hours how? And how do we know she was not given a chance to correct things?



Well I've never ever had a dog poop in their crate, so that leaves me out on the smell or cleaning it. 


I think alot of stuff smells after the seizure as well, those dogs needed out of there and I hope they go to their rightful owners/adopted to good homes. And I hope the owner gets some 'help' in sorting out her issues, cause ANYONE who has animals in that condition has a definite problem. 

Maybe the dogs didn't look in bad shape, but they sure were living in filthy conditions, no animal deserves to live like that for even one day. 

Me personally, I'm not running a puppy farm /dog hoarding situation here, so I'm rather confident I'd pass inspection. 

I guess I have faith in the law, you get raided you get a lawyer and fight it if you think you've been wronged. Maybe the ones that are paranoid have a reason to be.


----------



## selzer

Jax08 said:


> A sebaceous cyst in his EAR? and yes, I have dealt with one...again, they do not happen overnight.



I have dealt with a hot spot one time. One time that went from un-noticeable -- had the dog at training class the night before where she failed her CGC because she did not let the guy pet her head -- she let the guy mess with her ears and paws, and had let him pet her head a few days before. But that day she didn't and I was surprised. 

The next day, the back of her neck blew up. I took her right to the vet, and they said yeah sometimes that happens, it blows up overnight. Wow! 

That ear thing was the worst thing I saw, that and the puppies. But I think that 48 hours could make a minor infection that the breeder was treating on her own, look a whole lot worse. But that did look really bad.


----------



## selzer

JakodaCD OA said:


> and you know this is staged how? You know she was denied access how? You know the dogs were left alone for 48 hours how? And how do we know she was not given a chance to correct things?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've never ever had a dog poop in their crate, so that leaves me out on the smell or cleaning it.
> 
> 
> I think alot of stuff smells after the seizure as well, those dogs needed out of there and I hope they go to their rightful owners/adopted to good homes. And I hope the owner gets some 'help' in sorting out her issues, cause ANYONE who has animals in that condition has a definite problem.
> 
> Maybe the dogs didn't look in bad shape, but they sure were living in filthy conditions, no animal deserves to live like that for even one day.
> 
> Me personally, I'm not running a puppy farm /dog hoarding situation here, so I'm rather confident I'd pass inspection.
> 
> I guess I have faith in the law, you get raided you get a lawyer and fight it if you think you've been wronged. Maybe the ones that are paranoid have a reason to be.



When they came for the pitbulls, I didn't mind because I didn't have a pit bull. When they came for the Rottweilers, I didn't worry because I didn't have a Rottweiler. When they came for the mastiffs I didn't care because I didn't have a mastiff. When they came for my GSDs, I looked around for someone to help, but there was no one left. 

We can go through life turning our heads from things, and believing that the law will protect us. Until it doesn't. 

How do I know? I don't. I think Onyx was the one who posted that they did not give her access on Saturday, and then did not take the dogs or the pictures until Monday. She said the lady posted on PDB. Does that mean she is telling the truth? Who knows. It seems there is a whole lot of untruth on the one side of this deal. So far, I do not know that this woman has lied. It is so much easier for us to believe that she is lying though her teeth though, because than we and our dogs are safe.


----------



## Blanketback

Jax08 said:


> A sebaceous cyst in his EAR? and yes, I have dealt with one...again, they do not happen overnight.


Look closer at the picture - it's not *IN* his ear. It's between his eye and his ear, on his head. 

I can't believe we're all arguing over the little things like this. We should be all together in this, fighting for justice.


----------



## Jax08

Blanketback said:


> Look closer at the picture - it's not *IN* his ear. It's between his eye and his ear, on his head.
> 
> I can't believe we're all arguing over the little things like this. We should be all together in this, fighting for justice.


whoa..I'm just joining this conversation and maybe you should have focused on the main part of my above post instead of the "little" things.


----------



## sitstay

selzer said:


> If 2 days later, they went in and took the dogs out of there, do you think your dogs would have pooped or peed in that time.


I am unsure why the "2 day" refrain has been repeated here. The way I read the reports (media), the call from the property owner came in on Saturday (Feb. 8) and dogs were removed on Sunday (Feb. 9). Not two days. Possibly less than 24 hours between original call and seizure. And I love how easy it is for the "experts" to look at a photo of a fairly thick coated dog and ascertain in that one photo that the dog wasn't dehydrated or emaciated under the coat, all without putting their hands on the dog in question. Gosh, I guess this means that dog shows can go strictly web based now, since so much about a dog can be seen with a picture and no hands on examination. 

This is the danger of getting all up in arms over Facebook posts and anonymous comments made on various forums. One person posits a "What if..." scenario and before you know it it becomes a "fact" and endlessly repeated as such. So what if the breeder wasn't allowed back on the property? That is SOP for an on-going investigation and it does not mean that evidence hadn't been gathered from the moment they walked through the door. That does not mean that they waited those two days before starting to gather that evidence. And it does not mean the animals were left hungry and without water. It just means that she was not allowed into either home until it had been cleared. Nothing more and nothing less. LE tends to treat all suspects the same, regardless of the crime. So they aren't allowed access to their "crime scene" until it has been cleared, in order to make sure they don't tamper with anything. 

The fact that they waited until they had a signed search warrant giving them the legal authority to remove the dogs should make you folks happy that the law was being followed. Instead it seems to be a "red flag" that indicates a conspiracy is afoot. Of course, if they had removed the animals before having the signed search warrant? That would have been a "red flag", too, right? 

It is my understanding that at least some of the photos released by the shelter were taken at the time of the original *assessment*. That means they were taken as the property was being evaluated the very first time and are a true rendering of the conditions they found. Those very same photos would have been used in their petition to the court to seize the dogs. So at least some of the photos would have been of the conditions found upon first entering the property. That is the way the system works. The judge who signs off on the seizure order is not going to personally tour each and every property. The judge relies on the sworn testimony of the officers who responded and their photographic/visual record of what they found there. That includes the "real" cops, folks. Not just shelter personnel.

Here is a word of caution: to spend any time rationalizing and/or justifying conditions like these plays right into the hands of PETA and HSUS. It makes it look like dog people really can't police their own and so must have some outside force dictate the hows and whens of our dog owning endeavors.

And make no mistake about it. To sit and freaking quibble about how many inches a dog can crap in any given time period is attempting to rationalize and justify. 

For all the conspiracy junkies here, ask yourselves just how many people would have to be involved with the "illegal" grab in order for it to work. Lets make a list:


The home owner who called in the complaint


Every LEO who walked into both homes


The prosecuting attorney who decided to file charges


Every shelter employee and volunteer who has had anything to do with the seizure or the dogs or the care of the dogs themselves

It seems that the judge as agreed to that the seizure was legal, since none of the animals were returned to the breeder upon their petition on Thursday. So I guess the judge would have to be in on it, too. 

I think it is a good thing that people want every aspect of due process to be followed. I think it is a good thing to ask questions. But come on! To sit there and parse how much caked on dog crap is a bad thing and how much caked on dog crap is just the sign of a busy owner is ridiculous. You become the poster children for a PETA campaign when you do it. 

I find it horrifying that the people who seem to be spending the most amount of time keeping track of their red flags here are the farthest away from any real information about the situation this woman found herself in, have no experience in investigating or prosecuting animal neglect and/or abuse and seem to be fond of saying how important it is to "keep an open mind" while passing along every tidbit of gossip and internet hyperbole as if it is further proof that something is wrong. 

And the people who are close to the situation, who do have first hand knowledge? They are open and quick about acknowledging that there were problems, both personal and financial, and that the situation got out of hand. They don't believe it is in the best interests of the breeder or the dogs to have them taken away permanently. But they are NOT in denial that there was a big problem. Maybe some of the keyboard jockeys here could slow down long enough to hear what those people had to say: there were problems there and something needed to happen. 

It boggles my mind that there are still a few people here who are willing to give this Dawn chick the benefit of the doubt and buy into a conspiracy that runs through so many different people and yet the dogs are only given a moment's thought when how much poo they can produce in any given time period is under discussion. What about giving the darn dogs the benefit of the doubt? 

Those of you who looked at the picture of that poor dog's ear and said it could have been photoshopped or simply a stock photo of some random dog unrelated to this situation should be ashamed of yourselves. If the nutjob animal rights wingnuts ever do gain the ability to dictate how or even if we get to keep domesticated dogs, I am holding you at least partially responsible. 
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

Sheilah, the flip side is that the authorities can come in whenever they want and seize your animals. Is that any better?


----------



## onyx'girl

So....the conditions were deplorable. The shelter has a brand new facility. Why didn't they take the dog out of the deplorable conditions as soon as they found them? Remember there were two litters of puppies adding to the total amount of dogs. Why did they wait to remove them from those nasty crates and stench? Court order? 

Sheilah, you are as "guilty" as the rest of anyone posting here, as you contributed to this thread just as everyone else has.


----------



## Betty

I get the feeling in reading part of this thread and other threads that some people seem to be putting a lot more emphasis on property rights then they are on the way those dogs were being housed. 

Did you see those pups? What happy healthy puppy sits in a crate just looking at people? Mine would greet Godzilla if he walked in the room....

I see a lot of potential scenarios imagined for the breeder and a lot of nit picking news articles on the Animal Control Officers. News articles that contradict each other on if she signed over the dogs or not were used as evidence of the nefarious motives of animal control.

Are we getting that scared of animal right activists that the condition of those dogs are a poor second to what is important to us?

And it really seems that people want Animal Control to have totally different procedures in place for the financially valuable dogs then the other ones that come through their doors. 

I don't get it.

There are lessons to learn but if it's not to late I think it's our lesson to learn and not that of Animal Control.

If you ship your dog like cargo know where it is going. 

If you co own a dog know where it lives.

If you know some one in the breed getting over their head, intervene, don't walk away.

And for God's sake if you feel yourself getting overwhelmed send back the dogs on breeding contracts, call your co owners and tell them to get the dog, and stop breeding until you have things under control.

You know what I fear we look like to Mr and Mrs Public? Money hungry breeders that put the dogs welfare way down on the list of important things. They see dogs being flown around the world for breeding, they see the monetary value of these dogs being discussed, they see people in the breed saying they are not going to judge and that it could happen to anyone.

And then we wonder why we get regulated.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> Sheilah, the flip side is that the authorities can come in whenever they want and seize your animals. Is that any better?


No, that is not the flip side. The property owner made a complaint because the breeder hadn't paid rent in months and had cut off communication. 

Then the police department got involved. The LEGAL owner of the rental property gave the police permission to enter the property and evaluate the situation. As is her legal right. 

Then the police decided to take action. They called in the local animal control agents that are also under the umbrella SPCA organization and a search warrant, requesting the animals be removed was approved by a judge, who was in their legal right to approve or deny based on testimony and visual evidence.

Then the animals were legally removed. And remember that two judges have now ruled that the seizure was legal. The judge who signed the search warrant and the judge who denied the breeder's petition to have the animals returned to her care and control. 

So what part about any of that process leads you to know that "authorities can come in whenever they want and seize your animals"? You show me where. Not crazed, internet rumor mongering or what you fear could happen, but where that has actually happened here. And then you tell me that your "proof" is worth more than the well being of those dogs.

The only side of the coin I am interested in is the side that addresses what is best for the dogs. I couldn't give a rat's patootie abou_t anything else. _

Do I think the shelter could have handled it better? Absolutely. They would have been a lot better off just pointing media and looky-lous to the police, since the whole thing started with a police department action anyway. But I also know that being dumb in talking to the media doesn't exclude the correct and moral thing being done. You can be stupid and right. They aren't mutually exclusive. 
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay

onyx'girl said:


> So....the conditions were deplorable. The shelter has a brand new facility.* Why didn't they take the dog out of the deplorable conditions as soon as they found them*? Remember there were two litters of puppies adding to the total amount of dogs. Why did they wait to remove them from those nasty crates and stench? * Court order?*


Yes! A legal authorization to remove them! The rule of law lays out a process, a procedure, that needs to be followed. Is that some how suspect?

And I would like to think that there is a difference between someone posting their opinion that the pus filled wound is perhaps photoshopped and someone posting to say slow the roll because you're playing right into the very agenda you're afraid of. And I have very much refrained from repeating blog posts and Facebook statements as fact. So, yes, I see a difference. But I can totally understand how you would want to quibble on that point. 
Sheilah


----------



## EJQ

FYI the dogs have not been placed in adoptive homes. Correct there is a court order placing proceedings on hold. I was at the CGHS the day after the surrender. The dogs had been cleaned up and fed etc. I got to see about 29 nine of the dogs. While I was there they were being weighed, vaccinated for rabies, distemper etc. They were treated for ticks, fleas, worms and blood was drawn for testing. At that time the facility was deluged with applications (close to 400).

The conditions in which these dogs were kept was beyond belief! They are getting great care now and since CGHS is a no-kill facility they will be safe until they go to their forever homes.

As far as the co-ownership issue is concerned, would you not think that anyone who had an interest in a dog that they partly owned would find some way to monitor the dog's well being. People around here are hoping that the so-called co-owners will also be charged.

The whole thing rots - thank goodness these dogs are safe!!!!


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm not quibbling anything, though you seem to be very defensive about this whole debacle. I said nothing about a pus filled wound.
The shelter has been posting their updates, and then they post again contradicting their previous statements. To announce these dogs up for adoption within hours of the seizure is where I take issue, they didn't even know who the legal owners were... 
And their fb page has so many commenting against breeders it is feeding into the AR's arsenal. They should have just kept it lower profile until they sorted it all out legally.


----------



## Blanketback

"Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation to help protect the health and safety of dogs and cats across New York State by authorizing local municipalities to adopt more stringent laws to regulate pet dealers"

Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation to Strengthen Oversight of Pet Dealers in New York State | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

This is 2nd time I've linked that. I guess nobody understands the implications? Or is it ok because it's in NY state, and not your own? Or do you just not want to bother reading it at all, and would rather get upset by some upsetting pictures?


----------



## sitstay

selzer said:


> How do I know? I don't. I think Onyx was the one who posted that they did not give her access on Saturday, and then did not take the dogs or the pictures until Monday.


So despite media recording the removal of dogs on Sunday, you believe what? That they brought them all back on Monday, took pictures on Monday and removed them again?

And yet they are smart enough to cover up a conspiracy that has how many different people involved?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that what they allowed or didn't allow the breeder to do or not do on the property has nothing to do with what was going on with the dogs during that same time period. 
Sheilah


----------



## Betty

I think it is worthy of it's own thread.

In this thread I think it could be used a distraction from those "upsetting" pictures.


----------



## Blanketback

But I believe they're interwoven. This happened only a few weeks before the raid.


----------



## EJQ

onyx'girl said:


> So....the conditions were deplorable. The shelter has a brand new facility. Why didn't they take the dog out of the deplorable conditions as soon as they found them? Remember there were two litters of puppies adding to the total amount of dogs. Why did they wait to remove them from those nasty crates and stench? Court order?
> 
> Sheilah, you are as "guilty" as the rest of anyone posting here, as you contributed to this thread just as everyone else has.


If you actually lived in this area you would know that the new facility is still under construction and far from complete. Some of the dogs were housed in the original facility and the rest were put into a wing of the new facility that just happened to be about 80% complete - it has heat, water and completed runs.

I certainly think everyone is entitled to an opinion but don't pretend to know what actually transpired - there are enough rumors and gossip right in this area without going half way across the country.


----------



## sitstay

onyx'girl said:


> I'm not quibbling anything, though you seem to be very defensive about this whole debacle.


If I appear defensive it is my own response to how offensive I find some of the rampant speculation. At times the posts here have taken on the flavor of a junior high hallway. 

I love living with dogs. I love training them and observing them. I love everything about it. And when I see people engage in the kind of rationalizing and justifying that has gone on here, knowing that it plays into the hands of the people who don't think we should own dogs or breed them, I get disgusted. 

Nothing else BUT the well being of the dogs should be paramount to those of us who want to continue to own and train and live with dogs. Be skeptical of verbose shelter presidents. Ask hard questions and make sure that due process is addressed. But don't pull stuff out of the air and get your internet freak on about it. 
Sheilah


----------



## onyx'girl

where are the young puppies? And are there others being whelped? According to Perez there were some pregnant females included in the confiscation.


----------



## LifeofRiley

So, i just got home and am reading the recent posts on this thread now.  And, all I can say is, thank you, Sheilah, for once again taking the time to be the voice of common sense and reason.


----------



## Blanketback

I say thank you too, Sheilah. It's no pleasure for me to think the worst of these people, and I need to have faith that if they are 'bad apples' then they won't hold their positions for long.


----------



## sitstay

onyx'girl said:


> And their fb page has so many commenting against breeders it is feeding into the AR's arsenal. They should have just kept it lower profile until they sorted it all out legally.


Sure, just like many are posting about how the conditions weren't really that bad and anyone who leaves their dog crated for an hour or two would find a bigger mess is playing into the hands of those same AR folks. 

You don't see how commenting about "staged photos", etc. makes us look like loons? I totally agree about keeping a low profile. It sure would have been better if they had done just that. Although I get the feeling that then the complaints would have been about what are they hiding, seizing such a large group of expensive dogs and not saying anything about it.
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

It was only a few weeks ago when GCHS said they'd given some dogs to the local K9 trainer, they'd sent 2 others to pre-approved homes, and they were taking applications for the rest. They didn't give a darn about any ownership claims, and that was that. 

So now what? Everything's changed, but I'm still supposed to take everything at face value? How does questioning them, after all that, make me look like a loon? Who's a loon, lol?


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> But I believe they're interwoven. This happened only a few weeks before the raid.


And what? They were able to secretly monitor from afar this breeder's downward spiral these last months, some how knowing that they would be able to "interweave" her situation with their broader agenda months in advance? 

Look, I believe that bad legislation can be enacted. And I believe that poorly operated seizures happen. And I believe that breeders can have vicious rivalries. And I believe that land lords want to use whatever method they can to get rid of a tenant they don't want any more. And I believe that there are police departments who see a dog that looks like the guard dog on that great episode of Hogan's Heros and decides that must mean this dog will make a great police canine. I believe that all of those things can happen.

What I am having a very hard time believing is that ALL these things happened to come down on this breeder's head at the same time that she is also facing some pretty intense personal and financial problems. All in a perfectly orchestrated act to get her dogs from her. 

Add to my disbelief in all that happening as part of some plan is the fact that almost every single time this happens, anywhere in the country and with different types of animals, the same defense is used: rivals; poor weather (too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet); a lapse of a day or two that could have been rectified if they had just been given the time to do so. It is the same old thing, time after time after time. The first time you hear it, you believe it. The second time you hear you begin to question it. By the time you have heard five or six times? It makes you wonder.
Sheilah


----------



## EJQ

onyx'girl said:


> The person running the shelter is also a gsd breeder......interesting.


OMG where did you get that from?! I believe that you live in MI. You have little or no idea what goes on at the CGHS in Hudson, NY and you certainly don't know anything about "the person running the shelter"!


----------



## BahCan

I feel sorry for those poor dogs, first they were stuck in those filthy crates, and now they will be stuck in the shelter for god knows how long while this plays out in court.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> It was only a few weeks ago when GCHS said they'd given some dogs to the local K9 trainer, they'd sent 2 others to pre-approved homes, and they were taking applications for the rest. They didn't give a darn about any ownership claims, and that was that.


And again, where is there verified information that adoptions were actually done? Or that dogs were actually "given" to LE? Because I read the same media reports you did and there is a huge difference between saying, "And the police _want_ to adopt for use on the force" and "The police_ have _adopted".

So much of the uproar has been caused by speculation. And an idiot shelter administrator not clarifying and thus allowing so much of the speculation to take root. 

And all the uproar about mostly inconsequential matters has totally obscured the really important question of what is in the best interests of the dogs and does the breeder need psychological help or did it just get out of hand. 
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

I wanted to cry when I read the Flat Creek report, when they had to round up some of the dogs by blinding them with flashlights and using a hook on the heavy rings the dogs had on their collars. Seeing the conditions those dogs had to endure made me thankful for what Cuomo has done. But not if it means that people aren't going to given a chance first. Even if it was on the landlord's initiative, she should have been given an opportunity to rehome her dogs before seizure.


----------



## sitstay

EJQ, it seems like you have some first hand information on the actual care and control of the dogs. Could you tell us how many dogs were adopted out, with ownership legally transferred by the shelter as opposed to perhaps dogs being sent to foster care (with no transfer of ownership)?
Sheilah


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

I don't know what happened. I haven't read all the back-and-forth or the news stories nor was I there when all this happened nor do I know anyone who was.

My main concern is that there are people out there, and people here on this board, that think the conditions outlined in the photos are acceptable.

How can anyone, in good conscience, say this is acceptable ...


----------



## crackem

OMG, from putting 2 and 2 together. SO Charlene Marchand is not the chairperson for the board of directors?



> Charlene Marchand is the Chairperson of the Columbia-Greene Humane Society/SPCA
> Board of Directors


and this is not her website?

Taize Shepherd Kennel - Home

sure looks like she breeds GSD's from me. Figured that out all the way over here 

and when you have quotes like this


> All of the dogs have been examined, Perez said, and the shelter is in the process of reviewing more than 400 applications for adoption. The shelter gets a fee of $105 for each adoption, regardless of the age or breed of the dog, and Perez said many factors are considered, such as previous pet ownership, living conditions, and whether or not the applicant has kids or other pets. *Two dogs were adopted immediately by “people who we knew very well,*” Perez said. “They took them right to the vet, they had them examined and bathed.”


and many others about dogs being seized, and adopted out almost the day they taken casts more than a small suspicion upon the whole operation. I'm not defending the keeping of these dogs, it was horrible, they deserved to be taken. 

Bold statements made by Perez, then 2 days later the shelter saying the SPCA has nothing to do with the seizure. Yet they are still named in all the court documents? and dogs that were said to be adopted by the people doing the seizing are now under court order not to be? and only 35 of the 39 are actually with the shelter? where are the others?

I am really questioning everything else behind it and I think everyone should have at least a little suspicion.


----------



## onyx'girl

EJQ said:


> OMG where did you get that from?! I believe that you live in MI. You have little or no idea what goes on at the CGHS in Hudson, NY and you certainly don't know anything about "the person running the shelter"!


yes, I posted that when this first began...Charlene's website was linked and from first glance it did look like she was a GSD "breeder" my apologies, for using that word, should have read competitor. Reading this from her site, made it look at first glance that she bred.
Home of:
Select AKC Champions
2000 Canadian Grand Victrix
Unites States Top Ten K-9 Unit Service Dogs
AKC Obedience, Agility
and Herding titleholders
NADAC and Schutzhund titleholders
Therapy Dogs and Canine Good Citizens
GSDCA Performance
Award of Merit Recipients
*GSDCA Top Ten ATAA Sires and Dames*


----------



## Betty

Maybe I'm being dense but I don't get the significance? Wouldn't it be better if more of us were active with or local Animal Control Boards?

Those dogs without papers are no more valuable to a breeder then any other German Shepherd that ends up at a shelter?


----------



## LifeofRiley

onyx'girl said:


> yes, I posted that when this first began...Charlene's website was linked and from first glance it did look like she was a GSD "breeder" my apologies, for using that word, should have read competitor. Reading this from her site, made it look at first glance that she bred.
> Home of:
> Select AKC Champions
> 2000 Canadian Grand Victrix
> Unites States Top Ten K-9 Unit Service Dogs
> AKC Obedience, Agility
> and Herding titleholders
> NADAC and Schutzhund titleholders
> Therapy Dogs and Canine Good Citizens
> GSDCA Performance
> Award of Merit Recipients
> *GSDCA Top Ten ATAA Sires and Dames*


What? I don't understand. Are you saying that all breeders should not be involved in shelter or rescue activities? If this is the treatment they receive in a justified seizure event, I am starting to understand why they typically steer clear.


----------



## crackem

i fell for the same thing  teaches me to be a smart ass


----------



## Blanketback

Nothing? Just dead silence, and repostings of deplorable pictures?

You can't fault us for asking questions, when they're being ignored. That does make it worse.


----------



## onyx'girl

> What? I don't understand. Are you saying that all breeders should not be involved in shelter or rescue activities? If this is the treatment they receive in a justified seizure event, I am starting to understand why they typically steer clear.


Where did I say that? I said it was interesting that the shelter head was a GSD breeder. Nothing more....


----------



## Betty

Blanketback said:


> I wanted to cry when I read the Flat Creek report, when they had to round up some of the dogs by blinding them with flashlights and using a hook on the heavy rings the dogs had on their collars. Seeing the conditions those dogs had to endure made me thankful for what Cuomo has done. But not if it means that people aren't going to given a chance first. Even if it was on the landlord's initiative, she should have been given an opportunity to rehome her dogs before seizure.



You think she should of been able to keep dogs in those living conditions while given a chance to rehome?

She had a chance to rehome. She could of returned the dogs on breeding contracts, she could of contacted co owners, she could of stopped producing puppies....


----------



## EJQ

sit said:


> EJQ, it seems like you have some first hand information on the actual care and control of the dogs. Could you tell us how many dogs were adopted out, with ownership legally transferred by the shelter as opposed to perhaps dogs being sent to foster care (with no transfer of ownership)?
> Sheilah


Here's what I know! Firstly I have long been involved in placing GSDs that for one reason or other are no longer able stay in their present situations. When I learned of the surrender I contacted Ron Perez and offered help in placing some of the dogs in new homes once they were to be released. I went to the CGHS the day after they arrived at the facility. I did state in an earlier post what I witnessed that day. I got to see about 29 dogs including ALL of the babies. Police agencies from three surrounding counties have put requests in for the babies. To my knowledge none of the dogs have been released. When Ron told me that there was a court order in the case I pretty much backed off my search for potential adopting families. I have to tell you this; I was shocked by the condition of the dogs. Because they were cleaned up a bit they were sort of fluffy and didn't look too bad. That was until I touched them. There were six beautiful female puppies that I thought to be about six or seven months old. Turns out they were all about TWO years old and not one weighed over 30 lbs. Sorry I guess I won't say anymore - you just had to be there. Mind you this was all prior to the court order. It's a bit upsetting to hear all the bitching from people who live hundreds of miles away and have no idea what's going on.


----------



## crackem

Betty said:


> Maybe I'm being dense but I don't get the significance? Wouldn't it be better if more of us were active with or local Animal Control Boards?
> 
> Those dogs without papers are no more valuable to a breeder then any other German Shepherd that ends up at a shelter?


It's not ONE single thing, it's a few. Some real?, some caused by media confusion, conflicting info from shelter players? the extremely quick turnaround in some adoptions? the court ordered halt to adoptions? but not all dogs are accounted for? there's a lot of things.

I have seen a lot of seizures, well not personally, but in the media, and they're never adopted out practically same day like they were saying in this instance. There's a lot about this one that is different from others I have seen. It seems off. Oh, and you can get papers if ownership is transferred like this. It will be telling to see if all dogs that are deemed to not have other owners and adopted are spayed and neutered before they left


----------



## Blanketback

No Betty, I don't think they should have stayed in those conditions. Sorry if my questioning the circumstances around the seizure seems to imply that I think that's ok.


----------



## onyx'girl

I don't think anyone is supporting what Dawn did. The issue is the way things have been publicly announced/contradicted in such a rushed way. AR's are watching this of course....
And now the wait begins. The dogs are what is most important. I hope that justice will be served, and not for the sake of an agenda.


----------



## Blanketback

Well, even Dawn herself (if the PDB post is hers) says that the pictures look appalling.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

That's the worst photo I've seen. That's nasty. But a photo doesn't tell a whole story, not when the dogs came out clean and not with all the double talk coming from those who took the dogs.


----------



## BowWowMeow

selzer said:


> When they came for the pitbulls, I didn't mind because I didn't have a pit bull. When they came for the Rottweilers, I didn't worry because I didn't have a Rottweiler. When they came for the mastiffs I didn't care because I didn't have a mastiff. When they came for my GSDs, I looked around for someone to help, but there was no one left.


I assume you were trying to use a slippery slope argument but please don't compare what happened to these dogs to what happened to the millions of people murdered and enslaved during the Holocaust! These dogs were not taken to a concentration camp where they will be either systematically starved, worked to death and/or gassed.


----------



## Betty

Blanketback said:


> No Betty, I don't think they should have stayed in those conditions. Sorry if my questioning the circumstances around the seizure seems to imply that I think that's ok.


Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. 

Questioning the seizure didn't imply that, I was questioning this statement:
" Even if it was on the landlord's initiative, she should have been given an opportunity to rehome her dogs before seizure."

I think once Animal Control walked in they had two choices, seize the dogs or leave them where they were at.

I don't think the latter was really an option.


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

BowWowMeow said:


> I assume you were trying to use a slippery slope argument but please don't compare what happened to these dogs to what happened to the millions of people murdered and enslaved during the Holocaust! These dogs were not taken to a concentration camp where they will be either systematically starved, worked to death and/or gassed.


Great, someone had to go and bring up Hitler again.

Well, it's been fun folks.

IBTL


----------



## Blanketback

I don't know Betty. I really don't, I'm not being snarky.
Since Sheilah was able to provide more of the story, and the rent was in arrears, then maybe this was a case of landlord distraint? But then I'd wonder why they were being handled through the shelter, rather than being sold to reclaim the money owing. And Dawn would get what was left. How much rent does she owe, versus how much are those dogs worth? I'd say that the rent might be - and I'm guessing - $1500/mo. times how many months? And the dog are worth...we don't know. Another guess - $90,000? Someone help me here, lol.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

The woman couldn't take care of the dogs let alone find people to buy them. Since we don't know how many she actually owned, how would she sell dogs not owned by her? 

I'm sure the landlord was po'd, I would be to, the house probably has to be condemned by now. 

I guess I'm asking, are 'you' saying maybe the landlord was po'd because he hadn't gotten rent and because of that, turned her in? Maybe so, probably the best move he ever made.


----------



## Jax08

EJQ said:


> ... I was shocked by the condition of the dogs. Because they were cleaned up a bit they were sort of fluffy and didn't look too bad. That was until I touched them. There were six beautiful female puppies that I thought to be about six or seven months old. Turns out they were all about TWO years old and not one weighed over 30 lbs. Sorry I guess I won't say anymore - you just had to be there. Mind you this was all prior to the court order. It's a bit upsetting to hear all the bitching from people who live hundreds of miles away and have no idea what's going on.


Thank you EJQ. This is the kind of information that people are missing.

I"m not so sure about the co-owners being charged as well unless they were aware of the conditions in some way. Take for instance the male on a breeding contract whose owner in overseas. Should she be charged?

Unfortunately, Ron Perez has come out with a lot of contradictory and stupid comments such as saying the legal owners and co-owners have no legal rights to the dogs. And I will stand by what I said...if these people have no legal right to the dogs that is a dangerous precedent. 

Say you are boarding an animal while on vacation. You come home to find the kennel has been raided for whatever reason (may have nothing to do with neglect or abuse). All animals seized. HS says to you...to bad so sad. My dog now.

Everyone needs to think about this. Legally animals are property. This case is going to be a mess by the time they figure out if the legal owners knew about the conditions.

All I can say is, if they didn't visit the site and sent her their dogs on her reputation and trust, then it's highly possible they had no idea.


----------



## Blanketback

I don't own rental property anymore, because I don't trust people, lol! Yikes, I'd freak out if I saw that. But I would try to get as much money as I could back, because that looks like a very expensive repair.


----------



## Jax08

JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm sure the landlord was po'd, I would be to, the house probably has to be condemned by now.
> 
> I guess I'm asking, are 'you' saying maybe the landlord was po'd because he hadn't gotten rent and because of that, turned her in? Maybe so, probably the best move he ever made.


I can't blame the landlord for turning her in. I would be furious and I imagine Dawn will be sued for damages to the property and cleaning of it as well.


----------



## onyx'girl

My mom had a rental and the tenant never paid rent...it took several months to get her evicted(and then she never did get the rent collected even after taking it to court) The tenent knows how to play the system, does it over and over, using alias's and somehow is teflon when it comes to the law.
My mom warned the person she rented from after she finally was removed from my moms property and that landlord shrugged the warning off.


----------



## Blanketback

That's why distraint is better, because you seize the assets. 
You can recoup the money owed to you.


----------



## onyx'girl

ha, the assets were nothing, they found remnants of meth making....had to clean up all the crap the tenents left behind and gut the house. Sad, because even after a background check, etc...she was conned.


----------



## LaRen616

I feel bad for all of the dogs, I hope they all find loving homes.


----------



## Blanketback

That's not uncommon. We have grow-op problems here, and the places are destroyed by the mold. It's really not worth the trouble anymore, IMO. Because it's very hard to get eviction notices, plus the upkeep, insurance...blah, forget it.


----------



## sitstay

Betty said:


> I think once Animal Control walked in they had two choices, seize the dogs or leave them where they were at.
> 
> I don't think the latter was really an option.


Unfortunately for some people, they believe that there is a third choice. They believe that evaluating the situation and then telling the owner that they have a certain period of time to rectify the issues is the way to go.

And in some cases it is the way to go, because the owner in question neglected or abused out of ignorance. They didn't feed their dogs a rice only diet because they wanted to starve them. They did it because they didn't know any better. Or the horse owner that thought the green stuff growing in the back yard was enough to keep a horse fed, not knowing that the green stuff was mostly weeds. Educating people like this, showing them how to do better and then monitoring for a while to ensure they actually continue to do better is all it takes.

But what about the people who know better? The breeder who knows what the level of care should be, but is now down to just themselves to feed, clean and exercise too many animals? There isn't enough money to feed every mouth every day, so they start to stagger feedings. And they can't keep up with cleaning, so runs and crates get cleaned out every three days now, because that is what they can do in the amount of time they have to do it in. 

So when animal control gets called and they head out and evaluate the situation and everyone (including the breeder) agrees on what needs to happen (i.e. every animal fed at least once a day and every enclosure cleaned daily), but there is no way for one person with no money to actually make the changes needed, what should happen? Should they wave it off and say, "Hey, you have no way of making the changes that need to happen here. And these animals are living in deplorable conditions, but we'll walk away now and come back in a few days"? You walk into a house in really, really bad shape and you know that in order to make it "right" the person will have to hire a professional cleaning crew. And you know the person will be required to take every single animal on the property to the vet, which will take money the person doesn't have. Those are just basic requirements in cases like this. What should happen when the person in question has no earthly way to comply? Should animal control just shrug and walk away? Say they'll be back in three days, just in case she is able to find a money tree in the back yard and magically be able to afford to do all the things that she currently can't afford to do?

Do I think this New York breeder is a hoarder? No! Except for the condition the animals were living in, she has no hoarder traits. She was able to sell puppies and have them leave, which no hoarder would be able to do. It looks to me like she got in over her head, and it got out of control. Often in cases like this the person things they'll be able to catch up before anyone has to know about it. So they never ask for help (and this is particularly true of people with "good" reputations within their respective animal communities; they value their standing in that community and don't want anyone to know how bad it has gotten, so they hide it and keep hoping that they'll be able to get it all taken care of, all the while it keeps getting worse). 

Yes, it sucks that this particular shelter has a loud mouth dummy for a president. And yes, the fact that some of these dogs might have a complicated ownership situation (more son than your average dog will have) makes things more difficult. And it is hard for some people (especially those living hundreds and thousands of miles away) to wrap their heads around how someone as apparently successful in the dog world as this person was could be living that kind of a hidden life. 

But none of that changes the facts regarding the conditions the dogs were living in. Hopefully the legal system will protect everyone here: the breeder, the legal owners, the shelter. But most of all protect the dogs. Because that should be out #1 concern. 

I was amazed when I followed a link to the shelter's Facebook page and saw a few names I recognized from this very forum, all screeching about Dawn's rights and making slippery slope arguments and arguing that anyone could have a crate look like one of those. And not one of them mentioned the actual, living dogs. That is shameful, coming from people who claim to love dogs in general and this breed in particular. It does nothing to advance the cause of good breeders being able to breed good dogs, either. 

I'll say again that it is a good thing to ask questions. And be skeptical. But when it begins to look like you're more interested in being right than in doing right? Maybe you should also start to question yourself? When you begin to think that pus coming from the ear or the side of the face makes a difference? Or if you find yourself arguing over whether 2 inches of caked on poop is better than 4 inches? Or when you honestly think that photos that show a different story than the one you bought into were "staged" or "photoshopped"? Being right or doing right?
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

I hear you Sheilah. But why _wouldn't_ I question the photos, after all that's happened? Tell me how I could blindly accept them. I'm coming from a place in my heart where my dog has been seized, and is under a court order, and the money I spent to microchip my dog has been for naught. I may lose my dog, because why? Or incur astronomical legal fees? Why?

Just so you know, I haven't been "screeching" anywhere other than this thread.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> I hear you Sheilah. But why _wouldn't_ I question the photos, after all that's happened? Tell me how I could blindly accept them. I'm coming from a place in my heart where my dog has been seized, and is under a court order, and the money I spent to microchip my dog has been for naught. I may lose my dog, because why? Or incur astronomical legal fees? Why?
> 
> Just so you know, I haven't been "screeching" anywhere other than this thread.


Why wouldn't you question the photos? Maybe because you slowed down enough to hear what people actually there had to say? Maybe because you know from living in the world that dumb people (the shelter president for example) can be dumb people, and still be right about something. The two aren't mutually exclusive. 

So, you have had your own dog seized? And that is why you are so quick to decide that this was all some bogus attempt to see through a few different agendas, all in one swoop? Or are you saying that you are looking at this situation from the eyes of one of those owners, who trusted this woman to be who she claimed to be? I would imagine that those owners, if they are real, are resting a little easier knowing their dogs are out of that situation. I wouldn't know though, because none of the co-owners or owners have actually stepped forward and identified themselves. 

Here is the deal. The dogs have not been adopted out. They haven't been speutered. Puppies haven't been sold. The judge has ruled that ownership claims will be investigated. Which is what so many wanted to see happen. And yet, here people are, still arguing that pus coming from the side of the head and not the ear means that something is "fishy". 

I just don't understand it. Go back and read this thread, post to post, and then come back here and defend the kind of wild speculation that was going on. Track down the "facts" to their blog post beginnings. Or their Facebook beginnings. Watch a Facebook post from someone saying, "They'll spay the pregnant bitches" become "They have spayed the pregnant bitches". 
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

No, my dog is safe with me. That was me explaining my mindset. You know far more about this that anyone, it seems. Perez was quoted as saying that the dogs would be spayed, and any pregnancies would likely be aborted. He was quoted as saying the dogs are all his now. He showed me some atrocious photos. One one of those statements turns out to be true, and I have to pick one? No, I'm sorry, I can't.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> No, my dog is safe with me. That was me explaining my mindset. You know far more about this that anyone, it seems. Perez was quoted as saying that the dogs would be spayed, and any pregnancies would likely be aborted. He was quoted as saying the dogs are all his now. He showed me some atrocious photos. One one of those statements turns out to be true, and I have to pick one? No, I'm sorry, I can't.


Spaying pregnant dogs is SOP for every animal control/shelter I have ever had dealings with. Of course, you can't alter in any way animals that don't belong to you. So you wait until the stray hold is over, the animal is legally yours and you spay-abort. 

A lot of the ill will towards the shelter seems to be directed at the shelter president. Remember that at the time he said what he said, the shelter believed themselves to be the legal owners of the dogs. She signed them over. She said she was the legal owner of the animals and she signed a paper that relinquished her ownership. 

It wasn't until after the fact, after she had signed them over and after they had been removed, that questions of total ownership began to surface. Was he an idiot for apparently refusing to even entertain the idea that the dogs could be owned in part or in whole by someone else? Absolutely! And thankfully a judge stepped in and ruled that all claims of ownership will have to be decided before anything can be done about the group as a whole. 

But again, I have to point out that if Dawn hadn't signed them over, the question of the shelter being able to adopt them out would never have been in play. She could have said that she didn't own them all, and couldn't sign over what wasn't hers. 

It seems that you are focusing on one small aspect of this situation and allowed it to become so important to you that you're willing to disregard or discount everything else. One idiot loud mouth making a proclamation (that never even came to be) negates Dawn's responsibility to do right by the dogs, her co-owners and out-right owners. One idiot loud mouth has you ready to believe that a large number of people are willing to conspire to stage conditions, etc. 

I just don't get it. You have heard of Occam's razor, right? The hypotheses with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct hypotheses. In this case the fewest assumptions goes to the statement, "She didn't do what she needed to do, the dogs were seized and now it is being worked out through the court system". 
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> You know far more about this that anyone, it seems.


I know the same facts about this situation that you do. I do, however, have a fair bit of experience working in an animal shelter and being involved in large/problematic seizures. 

I am speaking to my generalized knowledge, not to some specific insider information in this particular case.
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

LifeofRiley has already pointed out that Dawn couldn't have signed them over if they weren't hers - a fairly standard clause, I'm assuming?

http://www.registerstar.com/news/article_39096642-9f6d-11e3-9ca3-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm


----------



## David Winners

Just read this whole thread and spent a couple of hours researching what is available. I am glad the dogs were removed from the living conditions they were living in. 

IMO, anyone trying to justify the husbandry that these dogs were exposed to has no moral or ethical compass. I can hardly believe that anyone, let alone a breeder, is defending these conditions. The manner in which some have defended this breeder makes me question how some allow their dogs to live.

IMO, if you struggle to take care of your dogs during a time of inclement weather or hardship, when you live in an area where inclement weather happens, you should have less dogs or proper facilities to care for the dogs you have. Build a proper kennels or get rid of some dogs. There is a reason I don't have 20 dogs. I don't have the facilities necessary to care for them. To place the welfare of your animals in danger because you want more dogs is unethical and irresponsible.

We had 21 dogs in the kennels in northern Ohio during the blizzard of 1978. No dog lived in excrement. We were busy delivering groceries to neighbors that were housebound and still managed to care for our dogs, because caring for the dogs was more important than sleep. Weather is no excuse. There is no excuse. You take care of your dogs. 

IMO, if you feel there are logical reasons for dogs living like this, you shouldn't be responsible for another living being.


----------



## Blanketback

I don't understand the rational between asking pointed questions regarding the seizure, to the point that_ in doing so_, these filthy conditions are seen as inconsequential. Maybe someone can explain that to me?


----------



## crackem

Blanketback said:


> I don't understand the rational between asking pointed questions regarding the seizure, to the point that_ in doing so_, these filthy conditions are seen as inconsequential. Maybe someone can explain that to me?


because that's the stance most need to take. You're on one side or the other. There is no duality in their life. Things can't be both good or both bad, or even good and bad at the same time, unless it's the position they decided to take from the beginning. 

You can't question certain aspects of the seizure, whether brought on by shoddy reporting, an overzealous president, some head scratchers about a deviation from the norm in a seizure situation, without being on "Dawn's side", whoever she is. It just can't happen in their brain. No matter what you do or say, they will always see you as a person that is making excuses for and condoning the conditions. 

I assume it helps them think their position "stronger" in their mind? they sleep better?


----------



## Blanketback

But life is so much more complicated than that. There are always so many different facets to consider. I know with myself, if I find I'm stuck on one side, I'll berate myself for being simple-minded. Am I an anomaly?


----------



## crackem

Blanketback said:


> But life is so much more complicated than that. There are always so many different facets to consider. I know with myself, if I find I'm stuck on one side, I'll berate myself for being simple-minded. Am I an anomaly?


probably


----------



## Blanketback

Thanks  
I must say, it's unfortunate for all. Thinking outside of ourselves would have untold benefits.


----------



## selzer

Like most news stories, information trickles in. Some from good sources, others from less than good sources. 

When we here that a breeder with a lot of excellent dogs, winnings, etc, is raided and dogs in good condition are taken and immediately sold or given away -- yeah that will make people crazy. 

When, I saw the pictures, yuck, and my opinion changed quite a bit. I felt it was deplorable and was made fun of for saying so. Fine. I really don't care. It is hard to rationalize photos, and HSUS and PETA groups do know that. I have heard that they have paraded photos taken from one raid in Idaho to many different states' legislatures to further their cause. But it is hard to get by the photos. 

The idea that the dogs were left in the crates for 48 hours though -- that does make me wonder about how bad it would really look if the dogs were left without food or water or taken out to toilet for that length of time. 

If there are dogs that weigh half of what they ought to weigh, they need out of there. We hear a lot of differing information. The authorities say the dogs are all in pretty good shape. Six 2 year old bitches weighing 30 pounds is not pretty good shape. That is horrible shape, and is not necessarily going to be fixed with a couple of weeks of good nutrition. 

The dog with the pus, that's gruesome. It would look a lot worse after 48 hours of being stuck in filth. But my guess is that had to have been festering for longer than that. 

These are the worst weather conditions in 20 years. I guess I can see how someone could be overwhelmed, especially if there were two people taking care of the dogs, and now it is just one person. I agree with SitStay though, I think that reputation is huge in a show-kennel, and the breeder did probably not want to admit to anyone that things were getting out of control. 

But 2 year old bitches do not lose 30 pounds, in a month or two. That crap had to have been going on for six months to 2 years. 

As for co-owners being responsible and charged. I don't know. These people probably met this woman, know her record, like her dogs, etc. How many of us have had a dog shipped to us from a kennel we haven't actually visited? How many of us would have a dog shipped to us from say Robin, or Chris, or Laurie? While pictures may not lie, one can take pictures of areas they clean and set up specifically for that purpose. We really do not _know _the people here. Even if we have met them. 

Decline in health, changes in family or financial situations, may happen between the time when we met this person, and when we bought a dog from them, or sent our dog to them to be boarded or on a lease. And we would not know about it. The person need only type an e-mail, saying your boy is here at my feet eating an antler. And you wouldn't be the wiser. 

I think that it is a valid concern that people have about having a kennel raided where their dog is boarded. One would think that there would be reasonable procedures in place for this though. Dogs without papers are not worth tons of money, and getting dogs back to their rightful owners ought to be a load off of the shelter's minds and finances. 

I think there is a tendency that when people not only have multiple dogs, but are actively breeding them, for people to get the impression that the owners of these dogs do not care about them, at least not like pet owners do. If they live outside in kennels, if you have more than 4 or 5, if you sell dogs, then it is not the same as it is with other people. 

Breeders are just like any other people. They do care deeply for each of their critters. Most of them. Raiding a breeder should be the same as raiding any other type of person. If someone is out of their depth in dogs, and you would give person A a change to clean up the property, fix his fence, take the ones with clear issues to the vet, and maybe re-home a few on their own; then the same should be the case for person B, who happens to breed his dogs and sell the puppies. IF the problems are the conditions of the environment and not the condition of the dogs themselves. 

If the dogs are showing serious signs of poor health due to their conditions, then yes, the dogs need to be seized. Which should be true if we are talking about GSDs, mutts, chickens, horses, cats, or anything else. 

I am guilty of not wanting someone who has great dogs, and showing, and a part of a club, etc, to have allowed things to get so far out of control that her dogs need to be seized. I think it is part of the human condition to find flaws in things that we really do not want to believe is happening.


----------



## sitstay

selzer said:


> I think that it is a valid concern that people have about having a kennel raided where their dog is boarded. One would think that there would be reasonable procedures in place for this though.


There are reasonable procedures in place when a business is raided and animals are confiscated. A boarding facility. A grooming shop. The legal expectation from the start is that the animals seized belong to someone else simply because of the nature of the business.
Sheilah


----------



## LifeofRiley

Open mindedness only requires that one does not reject an idea outright without additional consideration or evaluation. If someone considers an idea and then rejects it based on a synthesis of experience, facts and evidence, they are not being close-minded.

In other words, having an open mind should not mean blindly accepting any item of conjecture/speculation as true as soon as it is presented on Facebook, Internet forums, media accounts, etc… and then viewing all other information through the lens of that original bias.


----------



## BowWowMeow

EJQ: Thanks very much for the first-hand report on the dogs' condition and status and for clearing up rumors about the shelter. 

I'm wishing the best for the dogs stuck in the shelter. I hope the legal issues will be straightened out so that either their owners can come and take them back or they can be adopted into good homes. 

And, again, I hope this will be a warning for breeders who loan out their dogs to other breeders. That's what I would be worried about.


----------



## onyx'girl

Owner faces 35 counts in dog case - Columbia-Greene Media: News
updated article on 2/27


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm glad Kyle Adams kept on this


----------



## TinkerinWstuff

JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm glad Kyle Adams kept on this


The reporting in the article appears very objective. Very pleased to see that.


----------



## KileysCritters

onyx'girl said:


> No I don't and there were no photo's of the dogs that I could find.


There's an entire album of pictures taken during the seizure here: cghs125's Photostream



Blanketback said:


> My next question: why does Charlene make a point of saying, "For the record this was not an SPCA raid" and yet the link provided clearly identifies SPCA? Why are they distancing themselves? Actually, _who's_ distancing themselves? How bizarre.


I think the comment is being misinterpreted. She is indicating that it was not a raid, but rather a direct response to complaints that they received.



JakodaCD OA said:


> Disregarding the poop caked in the crates, look at the wires/metal on those crates, they are skanky/rusted, and UNCLEAN..No way a dog in one of those crates did that in 48 hours.
> 
> I'll say it again, I have a wire crate that is 13 years old IN MY DINING ROOM..it has NEVER looked like that, it is not rusted/skanked up with dog hair,,
> 
> She may not have denied them food and water, but she sure was a SLOB and very very unsanitary when it came to taking physical care of them.
> 
> It sounds like some are making excuses for the conditions? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, because I am shocked that ANYONE would think that stuff happened in 48 hours. But then again, who knows, maybe people LIVE like that, and she just got caught/turned in.


Exactly. Some people are absolutely making excuses due to their personal relationship with Dawn or one of her friend or, in some cases, simply because they think this filth is acceptable. 

What about the dog with severe infection? This didn't happen in a couple days or even a week. This is a _very_ clear sign of neglect.


----------



## onyx'girl

KileysCritters, thanks for the input....when I posted there were no photos(that you quoted), that was before Charlene had them up on her fb page. She hadn't yet linked them. And most of us that have followed this situation has viewed them by now.
NOT one person that I've read on this thread has made any excuses for Dawns situation...we have however questioned how the rescue(or shelter, whatever they call themselves) had handled this seizure from the get-go...they've contradicted themselves enough to warrant some speculation.


----------



## Blanketback

KileysCritters said:


> Some people are absolutely making excuses due to their personal relationship with Dawn or one of her friend or, in some cases, simply because they think this filth is acceptable.


We're thinking along the same lines here, lol! I'm guilty of assuming that those who are willing to overlook the questionable conduct of GCHS/SPCA are people who are either friends of these people, or have a vested interest in seeing this raid go down. Like, hmm another GSD breeder? But that's wrong of both of us. The dogs come first, and we shouldn't muddy the waters by slinging accusations like that.

If you really want to know, I don't fit into any of your categories. I think it would be great if it was that simple. I'm personally questioning the integrity of the GCHS/SPCA Board of Directors, and wondering how they got there. Were they elected, or appointed? If it was 'Billy Bob's Save 'Em All Ranch' then it would be different. But to be affiliated with respected organizations leaves me wondering how this came about. Do they sell off the names like a franchise? How do you go from a small rescue to a well-known entity? Just by having the money to open a kennel? I'm very curious about all of it.


----------



## shepherdmom

That picture of the infection is just horrible. I think a lot of us here were posting at first before those pictures came out. 

There is no excuse for that. I do think the out of area owners need to be more careful where they place their dogs, but I don't think they should lose them, unless there is proof they knew what was going on. But I would hope they are just as horrified as we are.


----------



## SiegersMom

I think there is a lot of shock about this in part because these are high quality dogs. Normally in these things it is a puppy mill operation and the dogs have health issues and are not fine examples of the breed. We expect to find these conditions in puppy mills breeding inexpensive dogs with issues...DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. I'm not saying we condone it EVER. But when dealing with a kennel producing high quality animals it is a shock to see this low level of care.


----------



## Freestep

I don't think anyone ever said that the conditions were "acceptable". Obviously, action needed to be taken to get these dogs out of the horrible conditions they were in.

But some of these dogs are owned by other people, who have been coming forward trying to get their dogs back, and were called "charlatans". The authorities said something to the effect of "They're our dogs now, and we're not giving them back."

That is what people are up in arms over, at least that is what concerns me. I'm glad the dogs are out of those filthy conditions, but they should be going back to their rightful owners.


----------



## marbury

Freestep said:


> I don't think anyone ever said that the conditions were "acceptable". Obviously, action needed to be taken to get these dogs out of the horrible conditions they were in.
> 
> But some of these dogs are owned by other people, who have been coming forward trying to get their dogs back, and were called "charlatans". The authorities said something to the effect of "They're our dogs now, and we're not giving them back."
> 
> That is what people are up in arms over, at least that is what concerns me. I'm glad the dogs are out of those filthy conditions, but they should be going back to their rightful owners.


This is what I take away from this as well. I'm absolutely not saying that those conditions are OK, but it is horrid that it's been handled the way it has. In that most recent article update it says a few of them are already adopted out... I cannot fathom how that follows policy WITH the court block in place. Baffles me.

As for the discussion about how folks ended up sending co-owned or personal dogs to these conditions, I echo what's already been said. If you have a super nice, super clean facility in all your pictures, an awesome website, are professional, produce well-adjusted clean pups for buyers, and all the dogs you bring to shows are immaculate and perfectly conditioned it would not be hard to have a good image.


----------



## Freestep

marbury said:


> As for the discussion about how folks ended up sending co-owned or personal dogs to these conditions, I echo what's already been said. If you have a super nice, super clean facility in all your pictures, an awesome website, are professional, produce well-adjusted clean pups for buyers, and all the dogs you bring to shows are immaculate and perfectly conditioned it would not be hard to have a good image.


 Exactly. These people that sent her dogs to Dawn were clearly bamboozled, and I'm sure they are as horrified as the rest of us to find out what conditions the dogs were being kept in. From all accounts, Dawn had a good reputation before all this happened--she has some top show dogs--and I wouldn't have questioned her facility if I had met her at shows, seen photos of a nice, clean, top-notch place, and heard only good things from others. 

I don't hold the rightful owners at all responsible for what happened to their dogs. They deserve to get their dogs back as quickly as possible, and without a bunch of red tape and harassment.


----------



## Betty

Freestep said:


> Exactly. These people that sent her dogs to Dawn were clearly bamboozled, and I'm sure they are as horrified as the rest of us to find out what conditions the dogs were being kept in. From all accounts, Dawn had a good reputation before all this happened--she has some top show dogs--and I wouldn't have questioned her facility if I had met her at shows, seen photos of a nice, clean, top-notch place, and heard only good things from others.
> 
> I don't hold the rightful owners at all responsible for what happened to their dogs. They deserve to get their dogs back as quickly as possible, and without a bunch of red tape and harassment.


I hope any co owners get their dogs back also. 

I just think that Animal control is not use to co ownership deals and that it was new territory to them. I also think that there was a very good possibility that a lot of people that did not have any ownership was trying to claim it in order to get a dog. Either for their own gain or as a favor to Dawn.


----------



## marbury

Betty said:


> t Animal control is not use to co ownership deals and that it was new territory to them. I also think that there was a very good possibility that a lot of people that did not have any ownership was trying to claim it in order to get a dog. Either for their own gain or as a favor to Dawn.


Aye, but how hard is it to check for a microchip? I'm withholding judgement here until more information comes about as to whether or not the facility in question just flat out did not scan for microchips. With a chip it should be instant verification. And Dawn should have been able to produce the papers for every dog she shows or breeds from; that would have clear ownership and co-ownership. So I'm confused.


----------



## Betty

While there is an assumption that some of those dogs may be co-owned I have only seen one person come forward. And that is the person overseas whose dog was here on a breeding contract. Don't even know if their country routinely chips and if they do would it be picked up. And if chips and AKC registration denote legal ownership I'm the owner of a lot of dogs that left here fully paid for. It amazes me how many people never transfer. The papers I can understand, but the chip? 

And while Dawn should be able to produce papers, she may or may not, either under legal advice or her own decision. 

I'm just not sure if Animal Control really did anything wrong here. They were called in by Law enforcement, they seized the dogs, ownership was signed over, they started placing or attempting to place. SOP in every shelter in the country I think. And in every shelter I'm aware of pregnant bitches are spayed.

I understand the anger. I look at those photos and I am filled with anger that our magnificent creatures were living like that. But I will save my anger for Dawn. I will save my anger for those of us that knew the dogs were living like that and did nothing. I find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.

My anger is for those whose actions or lack of actions put the dogs in that situation, not for the ones that got them out.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Thanks, Betty--very well put.


----------



## sitstay

BowWowMeow said:


> Thanks, Betty--very well put.


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Very well put.
Sheilah


----------



## crackem

I don't care that the dogs were taken, they should have been. I don't care that they spayed pregnant bitches, as long as ownership wasn't in question, go ahead. The only things i'm concerned about its, #1 the rightful owners at least get a chance to get their dog back before some blowhard puffs his chest about dogs being adopted practically the same day and how they are theirs and everyone else can pound sand.

and #2, once the ownership stuff is over, ALL the dogs are spayed and neutered like every other dog that gets adopted out. I'll be very interested to see if any future breedings take place with any of these dogs


----------



## Smithie86

Depending on the age, microchips are a requirement in Europe.


----------



## shepherdmom

Betty said:


> While there is an assumption that some of those dogs may be co-owned I have only seen one person come forward. And that is the person overseas whose dog was here on a breeding contract. Don't even know if their country routinely chips and if they do would it be picked up. And if chips and AKC registration denote legal ownership I'm the owner of a lot of dogs that left here fully paid for. It amazes me how many people never transfer. The papers I can understand, but the chip?
> 
> And while Dawn should be able to produce papers, she may or may not, either under legal advice or her own decision.
> 
> I'm just not sure if Animal Control really did anything wrong here. They were called in by Law enforcement, they seized the dogs, ownership was signed over, they started placing or attempting to place. SOP in every shelter in the country I think. And in every shelter I'm aware of pregnant bitches are spayed.
> 
> I understand the anger. I look at those photos and I am filled with anger that our magnificent creatures were living like that. But I will save my anger for Dawn. I will save my anger for those of us that knew the dogs were living like that and did nothing. I find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.
> 
> My anger is for those whose actions or lack of actions put the dogs in that situation, not for the ones that got them out.


One of the articles here mentioned several people have filed lawsuits. Not just one. There is a now a federal injunction not to adopt out the dogs. That would not be in place if there were no truth to the claims. 

This was handled badly on all sides and I for one am angry for the dogs. Everyone needs to get their stuff together and do what is best for the dogs!


----------



## Blanketback

Ron Perez is the President, and what he did would be considered a violation of the SPCA's Code of Conduct and would lead to his dismissal. Don't tell me these people don't have a Code of Conduct or a Code of Ethics?


----------



## sitstay

shepherdmom said:


> One of the articles here mentioned several people have filed lawsuits. Not just one.


Can you link to those articles?
Sheilah


----------



## selzer

Betty said:


> While there is an assumption that some of those dogs may be co-owned I have only seen one person come forward. And that is the person overseas whose dog was here on a breeding contract. Don't even know if their country routinely chips and if they do would it be picked up. And if chips and AKC registration denote legal ownership I'm the owner of a lot of dogs that left here fully paid for. It amazes me how many people never transfer. The papers I can understand, but the chip?
> 
> And while Dawn should be able to produce papers, she may or may not, either under legal advice or her own decision.
> 
> I'm just not sure if Animal Control really did anything wrong here. They were called in by Law enforcement, they seized the dogs, ownership was signed over, they started placing or attempting to place. SOP in every shelter in the country I think. And in every shelter I'm aware of pregnant bitches are spayed.
> 
> I understand the anger. I look at those photos and I am filled with anger that our magnificent creatures were living like that. But I will save my anger for Dawn. I will save my anger for those of us that knew the dogs were living like that and did nothing. I find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.
> 
> My anger is for those whose actions or lack of actions put the dogs in that situation, not for the ones that got them out.


I don't know how anybody would have known, other than people living in the residence. It sounds like the landlord of the other residence saw the animals in that condition and called the police. 

I am wondering who all these people are who should know the animals were living in those conditions. 

Most breeders, keep pretty mum about the number of dogs they keep, and when they show a litter, I expect they clean it up. And when they send a dog back, I expect they give it a bath first. 

Just because someone goes to shows or is a member of a club doesn't mean that they have friends coming over and checking on their dogs.


----------



## Betty

That has not been my experience Sue.


----------



## shepherdmom

sit said:


> Can you link to those articles?
> Sheilah


The link I followed before is now saying you have to pay to see the article, but here is another one.

Owner faces 35 counts in dog case - Columbia-Greene Media: News

"Thirty-five of the dogs are being held at the shelter while a court order blocks their adoption, said Humane Society President Ron Perez. The court order was issued last week because “there may be issues with co-ownership” of some of the dogs, Perez said.

"Steve Patch, a German shepherd breeder from Middletown, said he has been working with some of the people claiming co-ownership as far away as the Netherlands, Canada, and across the United States."

Nothing about them having been spayed or neutered first. Just adopted out! 

"Four dogs have already been adopted out, including two that were adopted immediately by “people who we knew very well,” Perez said. “They took them right to the vet; they had them examined and bathed.”


----------



## BowWowMeow

A court order is not a lawsuit. A court order simply prohibits the dogs being adopted out until the co-ownership claims are straightened out. I assume that the alleged co-owners will need to provide evidence of their ownership. I would imagine that would be quite simple -- they could just have a copy of their AKC papers sent as well as the contracts signed.


----------



## sitstay

shepherdmom said:


> "Thirty-five of the dogs are being held at the shelter while a court order blocks their adoption, said Humane Society President Ron Perez. The court order was issued last week because “there may be issues with co-ownership” of some of the dogs, Perez said.
> 
> "Steve Patch, a German shepherd breeder from Middletown, said he has been working with some of the people claiming co-ownership as far away as the Netherlands, Canada, and across the United States."


Thanks for the link shepherdmom. 

Going back to your other post, there does not have to be any proof that any claims are true in order for a judge to issue an injunction. The lack of clear evidence is kind of why the injunction gets ordered. It gives the situation a legal time out while facts are gathered. It doesn't mean anything other than that the judge has decided that ownership issues need to be untangled before anything can happen with the dogs. 

Although it is sad for the dogs, because it really does put them in legal limbo, it is good for the people involved. It gives any actual owners a chance to prove ownership and it forces the shelter to slow the heck down and make sure they are doing everything they need to both legally and ethically to do right by the dogs. 

There are no law suits from anyone claiming ownership that I am aware of. But I am only reading media reports so I might have missed something? I am just not finding any mention of law suits being filed. A blog post saying that there are/will be lawsuits isn't the same thing. And even after all the speculation about numerous dogs being owned by others, it looks like only one has a valid claim and not even that has been clarified. Steve Patch is not acting in any official way and he can say whatever he wants about working with people who are claiming ownership/co-ownership. He has no burden to meet. He could be doing nothing more than making a list of every defender she has who has claimed ownership. That doesn't make the claims valid. The judge will get to decide who has a valid claim. Hopefully those issues will be worked out by the time she is back in court. 

As I said a long time ago. It isn't unusual in these situations for friends of the accused person to come forward and claim to own all or a portion of the seized animals. They think they are doing their friend a favor, and saving the animals from whatever the feared fate is. It really doesn't help in the end. It just makes people who have valid claims have to work that much harder to prove them, and it complicates a situation that is already emotionally charged for everyone involved. 
Sheilah


----------



## shepherdmom

BowWowMeow said:


> A court order is not a lawsuit. A court order simply prohibits the dogs being adopted out until the co-ownership claims are straightened out. I assume that the alleged co-owners will need to provide evidence of their ownership. I would imagine that would be quite simple -- they could just have a copy of their AKC papers sent as well as the contracts signed.


I think the other article said lawsuit.... but it doesn't matter really. There are lawyers and courts involved. Which is going to drag things out for the poor dogs.


----------



## marbury

I was considering the 'all they have to do is produce the paperwork' comment (re: claiming ownership/proving ownership of dogs seized). It would be extremely difficult to match paperwork to an individual dog without some method of permanent ID. Anyone could claim that a particular "Black and Tan GSD" was theirs with proof in hand; and have a different dog's papers.
How is that handled? Aside from potentially enabling greedy false claims it would be equally difficult (and infinitely more frustrating) to prove an ACTUAL claim. "Yes, that black and tan male german shepherd is mine!! Here are his papers, see? They say _male, black and tan, GSD, born xx/xx/xx_". Other than estimating age or referring to a DNA database (which quite a number of dogs aren't in) you're just spit out of luck as a co-owner or owner.

How frustrating! Definitely makes me glad all of mine are microchipped.


----------



## shepherdmom

sit said:


> Thanks for the link shepherdmom.
> 
> 
> Although it is sad for the dogs, because it really does put them in legal limbo, it is good for the people involved. It gives any actual owners a chance to prove ownership and it forces the shelter to slow the heck down and make sure they are doing everything they need to both legally and ethically to do right by the dogs.


Whoops looks like as I was replying to one message our messages crossed. That really is the point I was trying to make is that the dogs are the ones in limbo. I wish the people would get it together for the dogs.


----------



## Betty

marbury said:


> I was considering the 'all they have to do is produce the paperwork' comment (re: claiming ownership/proving ownership of dogs seized). It would be extremely difficult to match paperwork to an individual dog without some method of permanent ID. Anyone could claim that a particular "Black and Tan GSD" was theirs with proof in hand; and have a different dog's papers.
> How is that handled? Aside from potentially enabling greedy false claims it would be equally difficult (and infinitely more frustrating) to prove an ACTUAL claim. "Yes, that black and tan male german shepherd is mine!! Here are his papers, see? They say _male, black and tan, GSD, born xx/xx/xx_". Other than estimating age or referring to a DNA database (which quite a number of dogs aren't in) you're just spit out of luck as a co-owner or owner.
> 
> How frustrating! Definitely makes me glad all of mine are microchipped.


Good point, I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## onyx'girl

Because most of these dogs were in the show/competition world, they should have identifiable chips or tattoo's. I wouldn't trust AKC papers to be with all dogs/some may be imports. 
I'd like to know EJQ, how you knew the underweight dogs you bathed were 2 yrs old....as nothing had been produced to show individual information?


----------



## selzer

Permanent ID is a big thing with the AKC. To get hips and elbows OFA's you need a tattoo or microchip. Also, if you have more than a certain number of dogs, all the dogs have to either be chipped or tattood. And the same is true overseas, I believe. 

If the dogs belong to other people, then they should be able to identify them. 

What do you do in the way of co-ownerships though? Do you relinquish the dog to the co-owner? Do you charge them for the board of the dog? Do you charge them 1/2 the estimated value of the dog, to put against what has been spent on the dogs. Since a co-owner owns only a share of the dog, should they just get the dog free and clear? 

It sounds like a nightmare. 

If the breeder was well-known in the show circle, than I just can't blame people that co-owned dogs there, or leased a dog to her. I think that when we respect someone, like their dogs, want to incorporate their lines into our lines, we are unlikely to think that they are seriously neglecting dogs in their care. 

I expect their are probably some people in the rescue world that tend to be above suspicion too.


----------



## onyx'girl

I should have clarified, some of the dogs may not be AKC registered...they are there from out of the country on a breeding contract(but should have microchips) 
I wouldn't rely on AKC to identify the ownership or the dogs....process of elimination until or unless Dawn hands over all the paperwork on everyone.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Wouldn't they have a tattoo, a chip and a contract? How could anyone send their dog overseas without a legal contract and some sort of irrefutable identification? If the dogs are worth a lot of money, I am sure their owners would have done everything possible to protect their property.


----------



## Blanketback

THE DURHAM WOMAN, FACING CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH
39 DOGS RESCUED FROM HERE PROPERTY LAST MONTH, WAS 
SCHEDULED TO APPEAR IN NEW BALTIMORE TOWN COURT TUESDAY.
THE CASE AGAINST DAWN VERDESCHI HAS BEEN POSTPONED.
THE NEW COURT DATE WAS NOT GIVEN

Columbia-Greene County News

ETA: sorry about the all caps, font size, and typo but I cut & pasted from the page.


----------



## Needing Advise

My son owns some of these dogs & I can't say much because there is a lawsuit against CGHS & they are countersuing my son. . They have refused giving us back our dogs from day one for weeks, we finally were able to get one back, just so happens to be the oldest unadoptable one with severe health problems, the one they wanted to be put to sleep. When they decided euthanasia was best for him we got a call to go & get him ASAP. You might have seen his face, the one with the ear infection & open bloody wound to his beautiful face. After seeing a Vet that was amazing he is on the road for recovery & two Vets said no way should he be put down. Thank God for Vets who care about dogs who are old. I am trying to make things up to him by taking him for car rides & going to doggie parks everyday. His two favorite things. He deserves to live out his life with as much love as I can provide.


----------



## Needing Advise

One more very important thing, I appreciate the very few people who are waiting to pass judgment on Dawn & am so sorry they were blasted for doing so. There are lots of lies being spread and one day the whole truth will come out, I for one can't wait til I can tell it. If I lose my dogs I will never stop warning people of the bad things that can & do happen. Try to never board your dogs, you may never even get to say goodbye to them.


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm glad you got one of your dogs back. I can't wait until the truth comes out as well....and this getting postponed over and over is not fair to anyone involved.


----------



## Needing Advise

Thank you, way too long & costing thousands in Lawyers fees. Now CGHS is countersuing the owners who want their dogs back. This can go on & on for months, We just want our dogs now. Every lost day is stressful for the dogs and their owners. I'm so upset & scared that I will never see them again.


----------



## onyx'girl

I'd like to know what legal leg the CGHS has to keep dogs that clearly didn't belong to Dawn. Did your dog have tattoos/microchips to prove ownership?


----------



## Blanketback

Needing Advise, I'm so sorry your son is wrapped up in this mess. I'm so sorry for the dogs. I was very angry to see that the case was postponed, with no date set. I keep checking for an update, but there's no news. It must be terribly frustrating to keep quiet!

It's bizarre that they wanted to PTS your son's senior male GSD, when he was the dog that they said needed immediate surgery, and would require further surgeries, to save his life. I wonder what the story is there? That picture of him was horrible, and they sure used it well.
I hope we get to hear the truth soon.

I don't mind being blasted for sticking up for people who haven't had their chance to tell their side of the story. In fact, I don't really consider myself blasted at all. I think that most people are basically pretty decent - unless they've dealt with greed, cruelty or corruption themselves, then it's not in their realm to consider these things. I don't know which is worse: knowing about it because you've had the misfortune to experience it firsthand, or denying it's existence because you've had the great luck to avoid it? That's a hard one.


----------



## Needing Advise

Thank you. You are clearly a decent person.


----------



## Blanketback

Aww, thanks  I do make an effort, and it's a challenge sometimes, lol! But I already decided that if I win the lottery, I'm hiring the best lawyer to get to the bottom of this. With a huge budget for investigators, including those computer forensic experts. I have lots of big plan for those millions, lol. Tell your son my heart goes out to him.


----------



## Needing Advise

The one that was finally returned, his name is Nando. He's a import from Germany & has 2 ID things. Tattoo & chip, they claimed they had no GSD with the number we provided. Yet when my original Vet checked to make sure I wasn't nuts there was the number I gave them. I had a Police Report from my Town that mentioned bringing him back home when he broke the fence, Vet records from his Vet in NJ, Dawns written statement agreeing he was our dog along with so many other things. I honestly believe if he was adoptable he would be gone. Because he was not adoptable & had this terrible infection he would have been PTS. I guess they're not sure who the Judge is going to rule in favor of & Thank God gave him back. Ron Perez screamed at my son, called him a "retard & liar". We've never experienced this kind of treatment in our entire life.


----------



## Blanketback

It's been mentioned already that all the import GSD are required to be either chipped or tattooed, so actually IDing the dogs was never an issue. Returning them to their rightful owners _should_ have been a piece of cake, IF they wanted to return them - I can't see how a judge could rule against that? I also don't think that they could legally adopt out any GSDs that didn't belong to them, because that would require signing them over, and only the actual owner can do that. So even if they have been adopted out, and it's proven that this was done outside of the law then I'd think they'd be ordered to be returned.


----------



## Needing Advise

I don't even know where some of my other dogs are. I sent someone to CGHS & was told all the GSD's are gone & none there. Yet there was suppose to be a stay in order which was granted by the Judge. I've heard rumors that some of them are gone & that according to a Lawyer his words were to the affect "That train already left the station" We are suffering & have trouble eating & sleeping. I'm so scared and know I shouldn't be discussing the case before a ruling but so far CGHS still is SUPPOSE to have custody of my dogs. I'm not allowed to see them & do not even know where they are.


----------



## glowingtoadfly

This is so sad. I can't even imagine having my dogs taken like this...


----------



## Blanketback

No, you probably shouldn't say anything on the open forum. If you want to PM me, feel free to do so. I'm sure you'd like a shoulder to cry on - I know I'd be worried sick, and completely heartbroken, if someone stole my dog.


----------



## glowingtoadfly

You can pm me too


----------



## Freestep

Needing Advise said:


> The one that was finally returned, his name is Nando. He's a import from Germany & has 2 ID things. Tattoo & chip, they claimed they had no GSD with the number we provided. Yet when my original Vet checked to make sure I wasn't nuts there was the number I gave them. I had a Police Report from my Town that mentioned bringing him back home when he broke the fence, Vet records from his Vet in NJ, Dawns written statement agreeing he was our dog along with so many other things. I honestly believe if he was adoptable he would be gone. Because he was not adoptable & had this terrible infection he would have been PTS. I guess they're not sure who the Judge is going to rule in favor of & Thank God gave him back. Ron Perez screamed at my son, called him a "retard & liar". We've never experienced this kind of treatment in our entire life.


 Wow. I'm glad to hear from someone who is directly involved in the matter. So much has been rumored and there is so much disinformation and contradiction by the authorities in this mess, it's been hard to sort out fact from fiction. There are several people in the GSD community who are trying to get to the bottom of this. It's a travesty of justice that the rightful owners have not been able to get their dogs back. I commend you for your courage to speak up, but please don't say anything that could get you in trouble or be used against you. I want there to be justice.


----------



## Needing Advise

Nope, 4 were sent immediately to people CGHS already knew personally. No chance of them being returned. They were given & bath and out the back door. Think about it, they wanted to spay/neuter all the dogs, yet they can chose who a couple go to without doing this, IMO for possibly future breeding. One of the them has to be worth at least $25,000. THIEVES! Another thing, 6 were sent immediately to a K9 Trainer who works for them because they knew they were Schutzhund (don't know how to spell it) and titled and very valuable. How can you do that if they are abused & malnourished dogs? Wouldn't they have to be nursed back to health first? No, the picked out the most valuable & poof, they were gone. And what about the pregnant bitches, they wanted to abort the pups and fix them, they were not pregnant but overfed. Funny isn't it?


----------



## Blanketback

They have to be returned to the rightful owners. Just because they were given to others, that doesn't mean they belong to them. I could give you my neighbor's BMW, but it's still _his_. It's extremely unfortunate that this is now before the courts, and legal expenses will pile up, but hopefully those costs will be settled as well.


----------



## Needing Advise

Suppose to be a no kill shelter. But if a dog is there that is old & needs medical treatment to get better the correct treatment is NOT done nor the proper testing. $$$$$$ is their excuse for PTS dogs that can heal. Even though their Vet who saw Nando (they waited a week before taking him to a Vet) volunteers for them (which to me sounds like they either do not charge or at least give them a discount) They operated without cultures, left him draining for another few days with tubes, then they decided he probably needed more surgeries & realized he was old & had allergies so they stitched him up, gave him antibiotics that the infection was resistant to, let the abscess grow to the size of a golf ball in his wound. That's when he was released to come back home. I have in writing their Vet recommended Euthanasia. You should see how much better he is after getting the correct treatment. My Vet is almost as happy as we are at his progress. They wanted $800 from us for his medical bills, when my son refused because we wanted our Vet who knows the dog to treat him we were denied. So Ron cursed & called my son names and hung up on him. Nando's treatment is costing plenty of money but it's worth it as long as it helps. Ron accused us of not caring about our dogs, they are like children to us. We love them & care more than Ron will ever know.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm glad you got your senior dog back, not sure you can tell us because of litigation, but what was Nando doing there in the first place if he is a senior dog? Just curious


----------



## Needing Advise

JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm glad you got your senior dog back, not sure you can tell us because of litigation, but what was Nando doing there in the first place if he is a senior dog? Just curious


Boarding, with a signed contract, proof of payment & fed ex info. He was suppose to be picked up Saturday evening and I received a call from a friend who lives up there (4 hours away from me) telling me the kennel was surrounded by Police, Sheriffs and no one was allowed to enter the place for days. The place was raided. Nando knows Dawn since he was a young pup & loves her & being there. I was there many times, both inside & outside. He could run free on acres of property, he would swim in the water with other dogs and loves car rides to & from there. Something happened, winter weather was horrible so all the dogs were taken inside where she lives and most of the dogs were in filthy crates. I'm sure they were not clean to begin with that Saturday when they broke in without a search warrant but she was not allowed into her home for days and pictures went viral of the deplorable conditions inside. They surely added to the mess, leaving the dogs in crates without food, water or exercise for 2 or 3 days, no one could go there, they would not let anyone in to care for the dogs. Certain dogs would pee in their crates if a female was in heat or a couple of other reasons so cedar wood chips were used by her causing the poo & pee to look like it was all excrement. I hate cedar wood chips. She has beautiful indoor & outdoor runs for her dogs, acres of property to take them running in the mountains. She also had #5 in the world in his class at the dog show in Germany boarded there. He was also seized. I think he was #1 in Canada, Spain, USA. Not sure if he was there for stud or boarding, I think he has multiple owners. SG1 USA 2012 Dante vom Hunter Haus
I've seen this dog & he is stunning. I think one of his owners is in the Netherlands or Germany & doesn't speak good English. They said they didn't understand her & this dog was theirs. A shame, you have the right to stop a dog like that from being bred by fixing him because you're against breeding dogs and people should only be adopting mixed breeds rescue dogs from Shelters? All dogs are special & I think keeping purebreds that are high quality to show, breed or train is not only OK but where would we be without them. Even owners with mixed breeds like to know what there getting.


----------



## sitstay

Needing Advise said:


> Boarding, with a signed contract, proof of payment & fed ex info.


How long had he been boarding there? Had that infection/wound happened there, during the boarding period? Or did he enter her facility with it? My old Pug had an infected wound on his face, and it was a real bear to treat. 

I would be willing to bet that postponements are because of a plea deal being worked out. That is how these cases usually end. Probably good news for the humans involved. But hard on the dogs that were left in ownership limbo.
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

Dutch people are fluent in English, so forget about not being able to understand. What a load of bs that is, lol! They learn it in school - as well as other languages. That's an outright lie. How ridiculous. 

The 'no kill' label is misleading, because if an animal is sick, or aggressive, then they do PTS. They don't rush to PTS if the animal is adoptable though. Some shelters only give animals a very short time - but this is a numbers game. They only have room for so many, unfortunately.


----------



## Needing Advise

sit said:


> How long had he been boarding there? Had that infection/wound happened there, during the boarding period? Or did he enter her facility with it? My old Pug had an infected wound on his face, and it was a real bear to treat.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that postponements are because of a plea deal being worked out. That is how these cases usually end. Probably good news for the humans involved. But hard on the dogs that were left in ownership limbo.
> Sheilah


He got his first ear infection caused by severe allergies when he was two years old. The worst thing was grained food. We just really had to be careful what he ate & he's a big guy with a great appetite. My other GSD's do not have this condition Thank God. Anyway I was still working long hours & so was my son. So we sent him where he always went for boarding because he & some females needed 24/7 care. Females were pregnant & someone had to be there full time. Dawn had lost her job and I asked her to take them. He got into other dogs food and of course had a flare up in his ear. Dawn used to work for a Vet and ordered the same antibiotic he used in the past to clear it up. He gets out of cones and scratched his face & infection spread like wildfire. He had abscess which opened on the side of his face for about a week when she realized it was not getting better, the good news was that the warm compresses caused it to open & it was draining so we decided he probably just needed more time to heal but he should be picked up the following weekend and taken to his regular Vet. Turns out he is seized, fed regular grain food at CGHS, taken off medicine he was still on. CGHS when told of his condition said he was fine & had a SLIGHT ear infection. He was kept from us from the 8th of February & not seen by their Vet til the 14th. Now that's cruelty. They said it was from a dog bite, along with so many other mistruths. Anyways, Nando needed his meds changed because the infection became resistant to the antibiotic the Vet was giving him. He needed the culture done, xrays, rule out cancer & MRSA which took me a week to get results. Two Vets have since informed me that without a culture first there was no way they could help him heal. testing came to almost $500 but at least he will survive this. We took him to a Vet really close to where we picked him up from because he was in such bad shape. Grand Gorge Vets were amazing and in their opinion there was no way he was ready to be put down. He just needed proper treatment. Our regular Vet has since taken over but it was them that helped save his life. I wrote them to thank them, they didn't know Nando but took the time & care to send him quickly on the road to recovery


----------



## Blanketback

Sort of ironic that they seized the dogs because of alleged lack of care, but the only one they've released of their own volition is in need of care?


----------



## sitstay

Sad situation for the dogs.
Sheilah


----------



## Needing Advise

Thank you all for all your good thoughts re: Nando.
I feel better answering some of the questions dogs lovers needed to know.
I wish they could be with us for our entire life but their life is so short.
I always loved doing things with them and never seem to have enough time to do it as much as I wanted. I recently stopped working and although I know there are boarding places that are wonderful be very careful, I would not wish this on anyone.
It can & does happen more than you know. Thanks again for reading and wishing the owners could get their dogs back.


----------



## Needing Advise

Jax08 said:


> The dogs were surrendered which means the shelter can adopt out, send to rescue or euthanize (NOT that they are!!) as needed. The issue seems to be that she surrendered dogs that she didn't own.
> 
> Not all shelters have the resources to vet and test dogs. I would assume they had a quick look over, no obvious temperament issues, and ok'd to adopt out.


Dawn never willingly surrendered or signed the dogs over, facts are she told them more than half these dogs were NOT hers & she would call the owners to come & get them now, they would not let her do that. Her exact words to them were "I would rather die than let you take all these dogs" & I believe her. She was denied the right to call a Lawyer & was arrested, handcuffed & taken away. So many laws were broken here. This was done on a weekend and one owner who still does not have two of his PBGS back drove up the driveway while this was going on. He was there to pick up his dogs, he was not allowed even though Dawn put in writing these 2 dogs were his. CGHS is so paranoid that they think owners with proof & paperwork that their dog is theirs that if they have a relationship with Dawn they will bring the dog back to her. Of course they have a relationship & she knows them well. Her place was never like this before. Only God knows the true reason, one thing for sure though-Those crates got worse when no one was allowed in for 2 - 3 days while those poor dogs were stuck there in crates without even water. They should have taken pictures when they first raided the place, not 4 days later.


----------



## Blanketback

I'd be fighting this to my last breath and the last dollar I could borrow, if my dog was taken like this. Have you tried contacting the person who wrote the articles linked in this thread? To reach reporter Kyle Adams, call 518-943-2100, ext. 3323, or e-mail [email protected]


----------



## Jax08

Needing Advise - please don't quote my words out of context. I was responding to a specific question, which I quoted in my original reply, long before the conflicting information on whether Dawn surrendered the dogs or not came out and based on the only information available at that time 2 months ago.


----------



## onyx'girl

Needing Advice, how did you find this thread? Did someone direct you to this? From everything I've read the people involved want this to stay hush hush so they aren't compromising the investigation or lawsuit.


----------



## sitstay

Needing Advise said:


> CGHS is so paranoid that* they think owners with proof & paperwork that their dog is theirs* that if they have a relationship with Dawn they will bring the dog back to her.


That is not paranoia. That is the only legal way to turn over an animal that has been seized. And it is very, very common in cases like these, where the accused has vocal advocates in the community, that people want to help "save" as many animals as possible for the accused because they can't believe that someone they know and looked up to could be neglectful or abusive.

If I owned a dog that had been seized in a raid, I sure would be ticked off if the seizing agency simply handed over my dog to the first person who said it was theirs, without any proof and paperwork. And if an agency has gone to the extreme of seizing animals, the person they are seizing them from has zero credibility at that point.

As I read the last court update, ownership of most of the dogs proved to be with Dawn. There are/were only six where ownership still unclear? So why would Dawn state that "over half weren't hers"? Over thirty of them proved to be hers?
Sheilah


----------



## onyx'girl

Remember that many of the numbers included 2 litters of puppies...still wonder where the pups ended up. K9 program?


----------



## sitstay

onyx'girl said:


> Remember that many of the numbers included 2 litters of puppies...still wonder where the pups ended up. K9 program?


I wish that there were a way to make a legal record of what animals went where in these cases. You know how the court proceedings are made a part of the public record? I wish deposition of seized animals was also part of the public record.

Not going so far as to name names of adopters. But why can't a record of where the animals go be included? It could be something so simple: Animal A adopted on 4/7/14 by private individual, no connection. Animal B adopted 4/7/14 by private individual, law enforcement connection. Animal C adopted 4/7/14 by sheriff's office, K9 training intended.

You get the idea. No names, but general intentions and connections "exposed" (for lack of a better word). Something that goes beyond recognizing the basic court order that makes them available for adoption, without naming names of who exactly ended up with them.

It would cut way down on the mythology (both real and imagined) that seems to accompany these kinds of cases.
Sheilah


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> Needing Advice, how did you find this thread? Did someone direct you to this? From everything I've read the people involved want this to stay hush hush so they aren't compromising the investigation or lawsuit.


Because of the extended length of time and I have had it. I miss my dogs, I haven't seen the puppies in months, most of the pups I'm hearing rumors are gone. I've also heard that even though there is a court ordered stay granted and owners (real & true owners) were called by their Attorney that CGHS wanted them fostered out, they wanted our permission to do this. Well at first we thought great, much better if you love your dog to see him or her in foster than caged at shelter right? Then we thought why can't we foster them, sign papers it is temporary til Judge decides, come check out our homes, dogs know their home & would be a lot more comfortable right? Well when one owner went to Ron to say no argument broke out and Ron told rightful owner he will never get his dogs back. When I went public is when I heard from a friend who went there to check (CGHS) none of our dogs are there. They even talked to a volunteer who was outside walking dogs for them and asked where are the 6 Shepherds and their pups, according to him they were all adopted out. How would you feel if these were your dogs & you have no idea who has them? Even thou these are unbelievably friendly dogs you never know what's going to happen when they are with a stranger in a foster home. Some of them are trained to attack, I bet if God forbid they did we would then finally become the rightful owner & sued the dog may be put down for attacking. I am worried sick & fed up. I went to some of these & witnessed first hand what they are capable of doing. I also made the mistake a couple of years ago I went to her place and the dogs were in a large fenced in yard, most of them know me very well. I started running towards one of the smaller female dogs named Jesse who was one of my favorites and I went to shows she was in. Well, between the very large fluffy ski jacket type coat I had on and my running away from the rest of the pack it hit me I may be in big trouble right now. Sure enough Dawn came running and gave commands in German and all of them stopped dead in their tracks. They probably were not running towards me to greet me but that Schutzhund stuff they do. I do not trust my dogs even though they're good in foster, it could be very dangerous.


----------



## Needing Advise

sit said:


> That is not paranoia. That is the only legal way to turn over an animal that has been seized. And it is very, very common in cases like these, where the accused has vocal advocates in the community, that people want to help "save" as many animals as possible for the accused because they can't believe that someone they know and looked up to could be neglectful or abusive.
> 
> If I owned a dog that had been seized in a raid, I sure would be ticked off if the seizing agency simply handed over my dog to the first person who said it was theirs, without any proof and paperwork. And if an agency has gone to the extreme of seizing animals, the person they are seizing them from has zero credibility at that point.
> 
> As I read the last court update, ownership of most of the dogs proved to be with Dawn. There are/were only six where ownership still unclear? So why would Dawn state that "over half weren't hers"? Over thirty of them proved to be hers?
> Sheilah


Their numbers are way off, not even close


----------



## Betty

How many dogs did you have at Dawn's?


----------



## Needing Advise

Jax08 said:


> Needing Advise - please don't quote my words out of context. I was responding to a specific question, which I quoted in my original reply, long before the conflicting information on whether Dawn surrendered the dogs or not came out and based on the only information available at that time 2 months ago.


She would never surrender someone dogs that do not belong to her. Her Reputation is shot, done. She had the most beautiful Shepherds, imagine one of her dogs won 5th in the world in Germany, that's a big thing. She spent her life loving, training and showing these dogs. The people involved in this raid wanted her dogs. It sounds so easy for outsiders to say get a lawyer & file a lawsuit, you'll surely get your dogs back with a good Lawyer. Well, no Lawyer wants to handle a case like this. #1 people go crazy when it comes to animals. #2 they are all in it together, Sheriffs, Police, Humane Society. Lawyers imo are afraid to take this case because of going up against the power. Does our Lawyer really care if our dogs are returned to us? No, he's not. He's in it for the money & because of the countersuit now he wants a lot more money. He wants the money and could care less if justice is done. They wanted these exact PBGS's that were ready to put to work. I believe many of them were in parole K9 cars the next day. Here's something else I'm wondering about. I've heard a trained K9 GSD would cost the Police Dept approx. $25,000. Lots of these dogs were already trained from trainers in different countries yet CGHS was only asking $105 per dog. You want to know what I think, most humane societies ask for a donation even for a mixed breed higher than that price. It was so underpriced because the majority were going to them & their friends & family. A inside job. My girlfriend called me yesterday and adopted a one eyed mixed breed tiny dog from New Rochelle Humane Society in New York. She had to pay $250 donation. When Dante won the Germany Show (hard for dogs bred here to win anything there) they were offered $120,000 on the spot for him. He alone is worth big bucks. These dogs didn't get adopted out to the best home, they went to work for Sheriff's , Police and their families. THAT is my honest opinion. Many also told me they went to donate toys, food, blankets for the dogs, CGHS turned them down said they had too much already but would take $$$$$$$.
I've had it.


----------



## Needing Advise

Betty said:


> How many dogs did you have at Dawn's?


My son sent 4, 2 pregnant females & 2 males. Dawn was handling the births of the pups. I've whelped lots of litters myself and wish I could have done it but because of their due dates (I was retiring a couple months later and working very long days) and my son works from 6 days 10 hours a day we thought we were doing the right thing, making sure they were with someone capable of handling the situation. We have a contract on it & receipts that we paid her & exactly what we were paying her for. When CGHS asked why our pregnant dogs were sent there my son told Ron Perez the reason was because we worked long hours and no one would be there to look after them. Ron Perez than wrote in a report (The Lawyers have Ron's statement) saying my son told him he did not care about the pups and worked all the time & could not properly take care of them so now they belong to CGHS. It's a downright lie and NOT what my son told him. I started a list of lies and have to stop cause my pen keeps running out of ink. I don't know what else to do. I'm thinking about writing to the Judge directly without a Lawyer.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> Needing Advice, how did you find this thread? Did someone direct you to this? From everything I've read the people involved want this to stay hush hush so they aren't compromising the investigation or lawsuit.


When this first happened I was shocked. When I started reading things about it along with comments I got physically ill (my mental state was probably a little off too) When I saw photos of Nando I went into a full panic. He at that time was our #1 concern. When CGHS finally talked to us they said he was fine, slight ear infection. I actually believed maybe he healed and the meds he was on were causing it to get worse. Next thing I know they call my son & say he needs surgery. I think I already told you the rest of story. I will be doing full interviews with as many news reporters in Upstate New York when this thing is over. Hopefully they will publish it, Dawn lost not only her dogs but so many people she knew & thought were friends have turned against her.  One news guy is saying he'll do the story, even if the truth is told just about Nando and how he was left untreated by them for a week makes me so angry I cry. I'll have all the paperwork to show the News too, if I had it to do all over again I would after this first happened I should have went public on the news without a Attorney. There's a couple of real big things I'm going to make public if the Judge decides against us. REAL BIG STUFF that when & if I prove this whole thing is going to be busted wide open


----------



## Needing Advise

sit said:


> That is not paranoia. That is the only legal way to turn over an animal that has been seized. And it is very, very common in cases like these, where the accused has vocal advocates in the community, that people want to help "save" as many animals as possible for the accused because they can't believe that someone they know and looked up to could be neglectful or abusive.
> 
> If I owned a dog that had been seized in a raid, I sure would be ticked off if the seizing agency simply handed over my dog to the first person who said it was theirs, without any proof and paperwork. And if an agency has gone to the extreme of seizing animals, the person they are seizing them from has zero credibility at that point.
> 
> As I read the last court update, ownership of most of the dogs proved to be with Dawn. There are/were only six where ownership still unclear? So why would Dawn state that "over half weren't hers"? Over thirty of them proved to be hers?
> Sheilah


I don't think that's true, I honestly believe about half.


----------



## Betty

Why did your son have not one but two pregnant girls if he did not have time to properly whelp and raise the litters?

It's obvious that for what ever reason Dawn had too many dogs to properly care for them. I have a heck of a less, neither me nor my husband work and I have my hands full. Why did Dawn not call you and tell you to come get your dogs?


----------



## Needing Advise

Betty said:


> Why did your son have not one but two pregnant girls if he did not have time to properly whelp and raise the litters?
> 
> It's obvious that for what ever reason Dawn had too many dogs to properly care for them. I have a heck of a less, neither me nor my husband work and I have my hands full. Why did Dawn not call you and tell you to come get your dogs?


I was working full time and plan was to retire last year, I worked in construction, and jobs I already had started had lots of extras added on. I had no choice but to work til it was all completed and had all inspections passed. I've never left any of my customers hanging, I complete what I start. The studs were flown here for a limited time and the time seemed perfect.


----------



## Jax08

I have no idea why you seem to be going off on me. Again, please do not take my words out of context and please READ my first response to you. 

I plainly stated that the original post I made *2 months ago* was to a specific question (and a general answer that is true of any shelter that has an owner surrender) AND that it was based on available information at that time. Plus there have been several different stories since then. She surrendered, she surrendered under duress, she didn't surrender...and on and on.

I have no argument with you. I've also plainly stated in several locations that I hope the rightful owners get their dogs back. If not, this sets a dangerous precedent for ALL dog owners. I have plainly stated in several locations that something is not right about this case. So I guess you'll have to "had it" with someone else.





Needing Advise said:


> She would never surrender someone dogs that do not belong to her. Her Reputation is shot, done. She had the most beautiful Shepherds, imagine one of her dogs won 5th in the world in Germany, that's a big thing. She spent her life loving, training and showing these dogs. The people involved in this raid wanted her dogs. It sounds so easy for outsiders to say get a lawyer & file a lawsuit, you'll surely get your dogs back with a good Lawyer. Well, no Lawyer wants to handle a case like this. #1 people go crazy when it comes to animals. #2 they are all in it together, Sheriffs, Police, Humane Society. Lawyers imo are afraid to take this case because of going up against the power. Does our Lawyer really care if our dogs are returned to us? No, he's not. He's in it for the money & because of the countersuit now he wants a lot more money. He wants the money and could care less if justice is done. They wanted these exact PBGS's that were ready to put to work. I believe many of them were in parole K9 cars the next day. Here's something else I'm wondering about. I've heard a trained K9 GSD would cost the Police Dept approx. $25,000. Lots of these dogs were already trained from trainers in different countries yet CGHS was only asking $105 per dog. You want to know what I think, most humane societies ask for a donation even for a mixed breed higher than that price. It was so underpriced because the majority were going to them & their friends & family. A inside job. My girlfriend called me yesterday and adopted a one eyed mixed breed tiny dog from New Rochelle Humane Society in New York. She had to pay $250 donation. When Dante won the Germany Show (hard for dogs bred here to win anything there) they were offered $120,000 on the spot for him. He alone is worth big bucks. These dogs didn't get adopted out to the best home, they went to work for Sheriff's , Police and their families. THAT is my honest opinion. Many also told me they went to donate toys, food, blankets for the dogs, CGHS turned them down said they had too much already but would take $$$$$$$.
> I've had it.


----------



## Blanketback

Needing Advise, if there are nefarious activities behind this raid, they will come to light. Nobody would condone that - considering that GCHS is operating under the Humane Society name, as well as the SPCA. They must withstand scrutiny, they _must_ operate within the confines of the law. Don't give up hope! And I question why this is being dragged on for so long.


----------



## Needing Advise

Jax08 said:


> I have no idea why you seem to be going off on me. Again, please do not take my words out of context and please READ my first response to you.
> 
> I plainly stated that the original post I made *2 months ago* was to a specific question (and a general answer that is true of any shelter that has an owner surrender) AND that it was based on available information at that time. Plus there have been several different stories since then. She surrendered, she surrendered under duress, she didn't surrender...and on and on.
> 
> I have no argument with you. I've also plainly stated in several locations that I hope the rightful owners get their dogs back. If not, this sets a dangerous precedent for ALL dog owners. I have plainly stated in several locations that something is not right about this case. So I guess you'll have to "had it" with someone else.


I have not had it with you and have not read everything you posted, I've had it with the CGHS not giving me back my dogs. I'm sorry I did not make myself clear and did not realize. I can't even blame people for being outraged after seeing & reading about this case. I too would want dogs taken away if they were not properly cared for. IMHO someone with authority wanted some if not all of these dogs and so far are getting away with it while costing owners their life savings. I would love to show up in a courtroom with one of my dogs they're holding in front of a Judge and let the Judge see for himself how this dog is able to do some things that are unbelievable. The dog would draw crowds of people wherever we went when I would so proudly show him off. I am just not myself, so again I am sorry if I sound harsh.


----------



## shepherdmom

You know the guy that ran the sanctuary of sorrow had a lot of anonymous internet supporters and even a Facebook page of devoted people who said he wasn't abusing the dogs. 

When the rescue I help at, actually got some of the poor dogs, they were in far worse shape than I could ever have imagined. 

I don't believe anything I read on the internet. 

I feel for the dogs caught up in all this and hope that it gets resolved soon for everyone's sake, the dogs most of all. 

But in the meantime I hope that anyone reading about it will work to fix system's so that things like this don't keep happening. There should be procedures in place for LE to follow and there needs to be some kind of similarity from state to state. It is absolutely ridiculous that authorities took years to get involved in the Sanctuary case, but here they jumped in so fast and started adopting out before rightful owners could even make claims. 

IMO it really shouldn't be this difficult.


----------



## sitstay

Blanketback said:


> And I question why this is being dragged on for so long.


It is being dragged out because they are working on a plea deal. Dawn Verdeschi is working to get the best possible deal for herself. 

Generally speaking, if an accused person is going to be exonerated and charges dismissed, it happens within the first couple of weeks. The accused is able to furnish proof that the charges are baseless (in the form of documentation), the animals are released back to them and everyone goes back to business as usual. It happens quickly because the court doesn't want a baseless case clogging up their calendar, the seizing agency wants to be rid of all the bad publicity as soon as possible and the owner wants their animals back ASAP. They all have a vested interest in moving on ASAP. 

That has not happened in this case. The fact that the March 25th court date was postponed is highly indicative of behind the scenes work, and that work is most probably a plea deal. If there were facts coming to light that exonerate Dawn? The prosecution would be dropping the charges and closing the case in a red hot minute because nobody wants to hang onto a case that is going to leave them with egg on their face. They move to get rid of it as quickly as possible in order to control the damage.

There was a huge seizure of horses a couple of years ago and there are several points of similarity: breeder that a lot of people looked up to; too many animals for just one or two people to care for; signs that things were not good, but that the breeder "explained away". Animals were seized. All of them. There was a huge outcry. Her defenders claimed that other breeders were trying to get her valuable animals, and that once a judge saw the case it would be dismissed and all animals returned. Judge ruled the seizure was warranted and suddenly her defenders decided that it was a land grab and the entire county government (including the judge) was in on it. Her defenders kept saying that the truth would come out when the time was right.

The breeder eventually plead No Contest, was able to get back 60-something horses (the amount she got back was tied to the money she was able to put in something like a trust account, proof that she could afford to maintain that number of horses). She was on probation for a year and animal control was ordered to do surprise welfare checks. For some reason this was labeled as proof that she was innocent, it was declared a WIN for her and property rights enthusiasts and everyone was promised a law suit that would expose the county agencies, the recuses, breed organizations: all the conspiracy members would be hung out to dry and all would be revealed. Her probation ended in March 2013, and we are all still waiting for that law suit. So far nothing but crickets.

Sound familiar? 
Sheilah


----------



## Blanketback

I do appreciate the time you take to try to explain these issues to me, Sheilah. I don't have experience in these matters, so I do find your posts enlightening and I thank you for them. In this particular case, I'd be doing alot less speculating if it had been reported that some of the dogs were returned to their original owners, rather than Perez going on record with his "they're ours now" nonsense. For example, the Dutch stud's owner.


----------



## Jax08

Agreed, Blanketback.

There is also a case in Louisiana of a long time pit breeder. All his dogs were seized under the accusation of dog fighting. When he was completely exonerated, it was to late. They had euthanized and entire line of dogs that were bred to be what the breed is supposed to be. The old time pit's that were considered baby sitters. I wish I could find the article on that!

Authorities do mess up. They are people too. Mistakes to happen whether by true accident or by letting one's ego get in the way. To me...this is all about the dogs welfare AND the legal owners. If the legal owners are found negligent by a court, then so be it. BUT the shelter does not have a legal right to seize dogs and adopt them out from a boarding kennel without the legal owners having their day in court.


----------



## Blanketback

Agreed, Jax 

And since these owners were forced to have their day in court - rather than having their dogs returned, once their ownership was proven - then the court should award them their legal costs as well, as equitable remedy. That would only be fair and just.


----------



## Betty

When I was a child abuse investigator I spent a lot of time in court. Every Friday as routine and emergency judicial hearings in between. 

My experience is that delays normally benefit the defense and are initiated by the defense. Witnesses move, recollections become blurry, life styles change, and any perceived feeling of urgency has been beat down by the passage of time.


----------



## sitstay

Jax08 said:


> BUT the shelter does not have a legal right to seize dogs and adopt them out from a boarding kennel without the legal owners having their day in court.


Well, part of the problem lies in conflicting information. It is my understanding that the judge in this case, not the shelter, ended up approving the placement/adoption of most of the dogs. Again, the judge. Not the shelter. This ruling was made after questions of ownership were raised, and is separate from the stupid, big mouthed shelter president and any statements he made about ownership and who had it. The fact that (reportedly) six dogs have unresolved ownership issues and are being held while it is worked out leads me to believe that there was some kind of investigation into the claims that not all dogs were hers.

So if the judge is the one who ruled on the issue of ownership, didn't the alleged owners have their day in court? Or is the issue now with the judge and what some see as an incorrect ruling? 

I totally agree with the sentiment that people make mistakes all the time, whether from malice or stupidity. 
Sheilah


----------



## Betty

Needing Advise---

I may of missed it but did you attend the hearing that they had regarding ownership of the dogs? Or rather you son, since it sounds like he is the legal owner?


----------



## Jax08

Not arguing that Sheila.

I was addressing this only


> rather than Perez going on record with his "they're ours now" nonsense.


He is on record saying this, prior to any court date. That's is ego...and wrong.

As I've said before, I would really like to see that court transcripts and find out exactly what is being said and done. There is so much we don't know and all we can do is speculate, which is pointless.


----------



## Needing Advise

Betty said:


> Needing Advise---
> 
> I may of missed it but did you attend the hearing that they had regarding ownership of the dogs? Or rather you son, since it sounds like he is the legal owner?


No, None of us had hearings & only received legal paperwork regarding the countersuit that CGHS has against the owners


----------



## Needing Advise

sit said:


> Well, part of the problem lies in conflicting information. It is my understanding that the judge in this case, not the shelter, ended up approving the placement/adoption of most of the dogs. Again, the judge. Not the shelter. This ruling was made after questions of ownership were raised, and is separate from the stupid, big mouthed shelter president and any statements he made about ownership and who had it. The fact that (reportedly) six dogs have unresolved ownership issues and are being held while it is worked out leads me to believe that there was some kind of investigation into the claims that not all dogs were hers.
> 
> So if the judge is the one who ruled on the issue of ownership, didn't the alleged owners have their day in court? Or is the issue now with the judge and what some see as an incorrect ruling?
> 
> I totally agree with the sentiment that people make mistakes all the time, whether from malice or stupidity.
> Sheilah


There is no court date for us, that is what I keep asking for. The longer this drags on the more money they want from us, yet they won't release the dogs to us. They want money for boarding our dogs with them everyday the amount goes higher.


----------



## Blanketback

Maybe they're just trying to intimidate you with the threat of accumulating costs? This is unfair, and if I can see it then a judge can see it too.


----------



## Needing Advise

sit said:


> Well, part of the problem lies in conflicting information. It is my understanding that the judge in this case, not the shelter, ended up approving the placement/adoption of most of the dogs. Again, the judge. Not the shelter. This ruling was made after questions of ownership were raised, and is separate from the stupid, big mouthed shelter president and any statements he made about ownership and who had it. The fact that (reportedly) six dogs have unresolved ownership issues and are being held while it is worked out leads me to believe that there was some kind of investigation into the claims that not all dogs were hers.
> 
> So if the judge is the one who ruled on the issue of ownership, didn't the alleged owners have their day in court? Or is the issue now with the judge and what some see as an incorrect ruling?
> 
> I totally agree with the sentiment that people make mistakes all the time, whether from malice or stupidity.
> Sheilah


The longer this goes on the more money our Lawyers want. Guess they are hoping we run out of money and then they get our dogs. In order to start a Lawsuit against the authorities that are behind this want $60,000 down. They don't want egg on their face and said after all the publicity on this case people would be outraged if even 1dog was returned, well who put this illegal raid on every news station, website, newspapers, radio stations, not Dawn, they did it & I have lots of eggs ready.


----------



## Blanketback

Maybe you should look for a lawyer that would be _looking_ to take this case? There are lawyers out there who _want_ these type of cases. This is also very sensitive, having occurred right after Gov. Cuomo changed how individual municipalities deal with these matters.


----------



## Needing Advise

Betty said:


> When I was a child abuse investigator I spent a lot of time in court. Every Friday as routine and emergency judicial hearings in between.
> 
> My experience is that delays normally benefit the defense and are initiated by the defense. Witnesses move, recollections become blurry, life styles change, and any perceived feeling of urgency has been beat down by the passage of time.


Dawn got a ride and was 1 mile away from the courthouse when she was told it was cancelled with no new date set, she wants it over with. They cancelled it. My guess & I am only guessing but they better be very careful because a lot of people would lose their jobs & pensions when discovery is made public. Internal Affairs should also be notified on how this was done. She was kept out in the cold air for hours with them all bundled up in their winter gear, she was shaking, in shock, freezing and crying hysterically, someone she knew saw this & watched the whole thing unfold, he tried to give her his jacket while he waited in his car, they ordered him back in his car & told him to leave. This all started IMO because she did not want the dogs outside in this weather and human beings do that to each other. It was too cold for dogs with a thick winter coat, what do you think it would feel like to human skin. I think it was part of their plan to break her, well their plan worked, she is broken.


----------



## Betty

I'm confused. I thought I saw that there was a hearing on the ownership of some of the dogs?


----------



## Betty

I'm also confused on the cold part. We did have a brutal winter, especially up North, no doubt about it. But I'm surprised that someone that lives in that part of the country that does typically have low temps as the norm for winter was not better prepared. Was she not prepared to house her dogs inside an enclosed kennel for the winter?


----------



## onyx'girl

II live in the North and the temps we experienced were far from normal. It was extreme and below zero for many days....we broke records with the cold and snowfall. I m not defending Dawn, but animals normally kenneled outside were encouraged to be brought in by local authorities.


----------



## Jax08

Betty said:


> I'm also confused on the cold part. We did have a brutal winter, especially up North, no doubt about it. But I'm surprised that someone that lives in that part of the country that does typically have low temps as the norm for winter was not better prepared. Was she not prepared to house her dogs inside an enclosed kennel for the winter?



I don't live far from where this is going on. A normal winter, we have a week of crazy sub-zero temps in February. This year, it started in December and never let up. It was -10 to -20 many nights. Relentless. So I imagine most people that would have to deal with kennels for a week and house dogs would be overwhelmed if they did not have indoor heated kennel.


----------



## Blanketback

This winter had snow like we haven't seen in a long time. The rabbits couldn't get to their usual food sources, so all my apple trees have their bark ripped right off, on the trunks going up over 3' and even all the lower branches have been stripped. I doubt they'll make it - and they've never been touched before. This was not a usual winter at all.


----------



## Betty

I'm not disputing the brutal winter.

Perhaps I've been in the south too long? But my understanding is that in this breeder's part of the country you would want to make sure you dogs were kenneled inside in a normal winter? 

Is it normal to kennel dogs outside in the "normal" week of sub zero weather?


----------



## Blanketback

I'll speak for one breeder up here - that yes they do kennel their dogs outdoors during the winter. Mind you, this was one of the kennels that I'd looked at as a possible boarding facility - and I ruled it out immediately, lol. But it's not uncommon for the dogs to be acclimatized to the conditions. When the conditions are within normal limits, it seems to be fine for them. I wouldn't know this firsthand, since I've never done that to one of my dogs.


----------



## Betty

I know you wouldn't.

We had temps in the low teens, very cold for us.

With that, even in my unheated (but insulated) kennel my water did not ice over. And they had straw in their crates and a blanket over the top. AND I was wondering if I should bring them up to the house. LOL

I actually took off my 20 layers of winter insulation (yes I'm a wimp) and crawled into one of the crates. With the pine straw and the blanket on top it was quite toasty.

I guess my point is as a breeder you have to be ready for weather extremes. Cold is not a problem where I live (well not for the dogs, just for me) but hurricanes and flooding can be. I can not have more dogs then I can house in an emergency. I can not have more dogs then I can evacuate if need be.

Part of the package of owning dogs in my mind. And I think breeders have even more of a responsibility then the average pet owner.


----------



## Blanketback

Mother Nature can be something, can't she? I don't think you're a wimp at all, since you live with the threat of hurricanes! That scares the heck out of me, and what about all those sinkholes? Yikes! Give me severe winter any time, lol.

I can see how this case would upset you, as a breeder. You would most certainly want breeders held to a high standard, and I'd be the same way. But right now I'm looking at it from the little guy's angle, where the authorities can seize your dog and good luck getting it back, if they want it bad enough.


----------



## Betty

I understand that also.. ...

That is the other part of the confusion. Did the owner of the dogs that this person is posting about (the son?) attend the hearing about the ownership question? 

And yes I do hold breeders to a high standard, especially in the care and welfare of their dogs, and/or boarding the dogs of others. Or whelping litters for others. It's pretty black and white to me.

I can not imagine having any one else whelping a litter for me but if they did and I found out the conditions were any where near what was shown in those pictures... 

Sink holes are scary, a couple of years ago post flood we literally had them popping up all over the place.


----------



## Blanketback

It sounds like nobody's been to court at all yet, at least from what's been said here on the thread today. And that GCHS is countersuing the rightful owners for boarding costs, and who knows what else - maybe vetting? If they wormed them, vax, whatever? What a mess! 

I did end up boarding my dog with another breeder, a very nice lady who kept her dogs indoors in the winter, lol. But a few other places I ruled out were also quite bad. One other one was atrocious, and that was a groomer's. One vet's boarding wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either. It really makes you think about how crappy the actual regulations are, for pet boarding facilities.


----------



## sitstay

Jax08 said:


> He is on record saying this, prior to any court date. That's is ego...and wrong.
> 
> As I've said before, I would really like to see that court transcripts and find out exactly what is being said and done. There is so much we don't know and all we can do is speculate, which is pointless.


I totally agree about the ego issue. It is 100% ego driven and very wrong. And stupid. 

I also agree with the idea that there is so much that we don't know. I do think there will be a plea deal in this case. Everything points in that direction and historically that is how these cases are disposed of (especially when the defendant is a first time offender and the issue is neglect and not some wildly horrific abuse). But that is just my own speculation, based on my own experiences and what I have read about. 

Time will tell.
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay

onyx'girl said:


> II live in the North and the temps we experienced were far from normal. It was extreme and below zero for many days....we broke records with the cold and snowfall. I m not defending Dawn, but animals normally kenneled outside were encouraged to be brought in by local authorities.


Then why didn't she send the dogs back to their owners, at least the local ones, if she couldn't manage because of the unusual weather? If so many of them were there as boarders and didn't belong to her?
Sheilah


----------



## Jax08

Betty said:


> I'm not disputing the brutal winter.
> 
> Perhaps I've been in the south too long? But my understanding is that in this breeder's part of the country you would want to make sure you dogs were kenneled inside in a normal winter?
> 
> Is it normal to kennel dogs outside in the "normal" week of sub zero weather?


I don't Betty. I would hope there was an indoor kennel of some sort. Most days aren't bad but the nights, even in a normal winter, are still to cold in my opinion to leave animals out. My horse is out all year but he's blanketed and has a run in shed.


----------



## Betty

Jax08 said:


> I don't Betty. I would hope there was an indoor kennel of some sort. Most days aren't bad but the nights, even in a normal winter, are still to cold in my opinion to leave animals out. My horse is out all year but he's blanketed and has a run in shed.


That has always been my feeling Jax. That even in a normal winter you would not want to leave your dogs out at night and would need some kind of arrangement. I was wondering if I was off base on that.


----------



## onyx'girl

sit said:


> Then why didn't she send the dogs back to their owners, at least the local ones, if she couldn't manage because of the unusual weather? If so many of them were there as boarders and didn't belong to her?
> Sheilah


It was a blizzard that had her bring the dogs in, returning them to their owners wouldn't be easy,especially if some were from out of the state or country. 
I don't know, like I posted, I'm not defending Dawn at all. 
I don't like the way the shelter handled the entire situation...if the dogs were in such bad shape, why were they left there for days? The flippant comments they made to the press didn't show them in a very professional way either.
The truth will come out, eventually. The longer this drags on, the easier it will be for excuses on both sides of the situation to be legitimized.


----------



## Freestep

onyx'girl said:


> It was a blizzard that had her bring the dogs in, returning them to their owners wouldn't be easy,especially if some were from out of the state or country.


 As I understand it, roads were closed and planes were grounded due to weather conditions. It would have been difficult if not impossible for the owners to come pick up their dogs on a moment's notice. Some of these dogs were boarding, remember? People will often board their dogs when they are traveling, so they may have been hundreds or thousands of miles away at the time.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

sit said:


> It is being dragged out because they are working on a plea deal. Dawn Verdeschi is working to get the best possible deal for herself.
> 
> Generally speaking, if an accused person is going to be exonerated and charges dismissed, it happens within the first couple of weeks. The accused is able to furnish proof that the charges are baseless (in the form of documentation), the animals are released back to them and everyone goes back to business as usual. It happens quickly because the court doesn't want a baseless case clogging up their calendar, the seizing agency wants to be rid of all the bad publicity as soon as possible and the owner wants their animals back ASAP. They all have a vested interest in moving on ASAP.
> 
> That has not happened in this case. The fact that the March 25th court date was postponed is highly indicative of behind the scenes work, and that work is most probably a plea deal. If there were facts coming to light that exonerate Dawn? The prosecution would be dropping the charges and closing the case in a red hot minute because nobody wants to hang onto a case that is going to leave them with egg on their face. They move to get rid of it as quickly as possible in order to control the damage.
> 
> There was a huge seizure of horses a couple of years ago and there are several points of similarity: breeder that a lot of people looked up to; too many animals for just one or two people to care for; signs that things were not good, but that the breeder "explained away". Animals were seized. All of them. There was a huge outcry. Her defenders claimed that other breeders were trying to get her valuable animals, and that once a judge saw the case it would be dismissed and all animals returned. Judge ruled the seizure was warranted and suddenly her defenders decided that it was a land grab and the entire county government (including the judge) was in on it. Her defenders kept saying that the truth would come out when the time was right.
> 
> The breeder eventually plead No Contest, was able to get back 60-something horses (the amount she got back was tied to the money she was able to put in something like a trust account, proof that she could afford to maintain that number of horses). She was on probation for a year and animal control was ordered to do surprise welfare checks. For some reason this was labeled as proof that she was innocent, it was declared a WIN for her and property rights enthusiasts and everyone was promised a law suit that would expose the county agencies, the recuses, breed organizations: all the conspiracy members would be hung out to dry and all would be revealed. Her probation ended in March 2013, and we are all still waiting for that law suit. So far nothing but crickets.
> 
> Sound familiar?
> Sheilah


It certainly does sound familiar, but was that the case with the horses? Did the other breeders actually conspire to put them out of business and take their top animals due to "relationships" within the rescue organizations? Did the rescue organizations give or adopt out her top animals to the Sherriffs that participated in the raid? Alot of these things due sound familiar I'd like to know those answer. That is if you know? Where they accusations? or facts?


----------



## BowWowMeow

I see very few facts on this thread, other than the direct quotes from the sheriff and the pictures of the dogs and the conditions in which they were kept. Everything else is rumor and speculation. There are two people who state that they have seen the dogs and their accounts are completely opposite. 

We also have people joining the board just to comment on this thread and they seem to be repeating speculations and rumors posted on social media. 

I truly hope that the trial happens quickly so that the dogs can get out of the shelter. Surely they are the real losers in this situation.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

I am curious about the horse situation described by Sit, Stay.
Were their rants regarding the seizure being a conspiracy to steal their animals accusations? or facts? 
The similarities are interesting. 
Were their animals claimed or given away to local breeders trying to get the animals and put her out of business? 
Or were these comments merely a smoke screen to cast doubt on the intentions of the rescuers and the community . It would be interesting to know. I suspect it was a smoke screen but I dont know anything about that case so I will wait to hear, if the answer is known. Were any of those animals actually given to other breeders with their own agenda?


----------



## Blanketback

Fran, I have no idea about the horse seizure, but from reading comments on another forum (arabianhorses forum, maybe? I can't remember exactly where I read it) there was talk that developers wanted the farm but the owner refused to sell. I have no proof of this, I read it on an online forum - I don't know anything abut it, and what I'm repeating is no better than common gossip. So PLEASE keep that it mind when you go looking for the truth behind it. Start with that forum, contact the members, follow up with the leads - but whatever you do, don't take me seriously! It's really not helping anyone when we treat rumors as truth.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

BowWowMeow said:


> I truly hope that the trial happens quickly so that the dogs can get out of the shelter. Surely they are the real losers in this situation.[/QUOTE
> 
> Yes. The dogs are paying for human mistakes as they so often do.


----------



## onyx'girl

Are the dogs still at the shelter? I read that many have been placed(a couple still intact placed with breeders). 
Hopefully the real owners have contacted AKC and alerted them that any transfer of ownership should be blocked until this mess is sorted out.


----------



## Needing Advise

Finally heard some news, Judge has everything he needs to see but still will not make decision on case of 6 dogs & their pups named in Lawsuits. My son & other people involved will be going to court May 28th. (I'm pretty upset that we the people & our dogs have to wait until then, and who knows, will they reschedule it that day? )
Here's the important information that is really scary for purebred dog owners: If your dog is micro chipped and you have his AKC Registration in your hand that does not mean you legally own this dog if challenged by authorities. I've been waiting weeks to get in writing a response from AKC. I thought I would get a letter stating that if I have the AKC registration than the dog is legally mine. I thought this would really help with my case. Here is the response from AKC & I quote "I am sorry, we are not able to provide legal advice, AKC registration papers are not legal documents, the legal ownership of a dog is determined by the courts." I am shocked & can't believe this. I thought for sure it would be proof. I did not tell them why I needed this question answered. Please be careful with your dogs. Dawn along with her attorney went to CGHS & did identify the dogs there (lots were not) and put in writing which dogs were hers & which dogs belonged to others. Please tell me your thoughts, how in the world can I prove they are mine? I don't know what else I can do. Charlene said Dawn refused to cooperated & identify the dogs, this is a downright lie and I hope Charlene is reading this.


----------



## onyx'girl

AKC just proved themselves to be a pedigree registration only. They aren't anything more than that. 
It is sad, because they'll now register the dogs that aren't legally owned and those litters from said dogs will be registered as well. 
I hope the truth comes out in court and there is justice.


----------



## Jax08

I see, from a facebook print screen clip that there is a breeder in Ontario with at least one of the male dogs who is trying to get the AKC papers so he can breed him. Word is he is also in possession of Dante vom Hunter Haus.

I would love an explanation as to why a shelter has the policy to give AKC dogs out to breeders? I have never heard of such a thing. EVER. 

I'm trying to stay neutral until all the facts come out but PROOF like that is hard to ignore.


----------



## Needing Advise

Jax08 said:


> I see, from a facebook print screen clip that there is a breeder in Ontario with at least one of the male dogs who is trying to get the AKC papers so he can breed him. Word is he is also in possession of Dante vom Hunter Haus.
> 
> I would love an explanation as to why a shelter has the policy to give AKC dogs out to breeders? I have never heard of such a thing. EVER.
> 
> I'm trying to stay neutral until all the facts come out but PROOF like that is hard to ignore.


Why don't you contact CGHS & ask them, I always thought that too.
I would do it myself but they won't talk to me or answer any of my questions.


----------



## onyx'girl

And where are the puppies???


----------



## Jax08

Needing Advise said:


> Why don't you contact CGHS


because I have my own problems to worry about today


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

Jax08 said:


> I see, from a facebook print screen clip that there is a breeder in Ontario with at least one of the male dogs who is trying to get the AKC papers so he can breed him. Word is he is also in possession of Dante vom Hunter Haus.
> 
> I would love an explanation as to why a shelter has the policy to give AKC dogs out to breeders? I have never heard of such a thing. EVER.
> 
> I'm trying to stay neutral until all the facts come out but PROOF like that is hard to ignore.


Hence , my question regarding the Horses "Sit, Stay" was referring to.
I too have seen those Facebook Posts , and YES that is certainly the case regarding not only those 2 dogs but others as well . 
The only dogs that left intact were valuable dogs given to breeder friends of the CGHS chairperson, and to the Sherriffs themselves, along with Sherriffs immediate family ( Mother) . 
The arresting officer got a puppy last a few weeks ago.
A puppy that was already sold to one of the owners in the current suit against the Shelter. 
CGHS dismissed her claim of ownership and refused her claim to her pup even though she had a sales contract, along with her bank statement to verify payment. 
Their claim was without AKC registration and vet records the dog did not belong to her. 
There was a stay in place but the dog was given away despite the stay to the arresting officer . 
That puppy was seized/ surrendered or whatever Perez is calling it these days at 5 weeks old so there would be no AKC registration or vet records obviously as the puppy was still with its mother at he time of the raid.
It is illegal in the state of New York to transfer a puppy to a new owner before 8 weeks of age, but apparently that law does not apply to CGHS. 
They took 2 pups away from their mothers at 5 weeks old, and got away with it. 
The first was taken directly from the "crime scene" and never accounted for. A 5 week old female pup just dissappeared into thin air.
Also , the 2 dogs that were adopted out immediately to people they "knew very well" were actually 3 young adult females adopted out immediately obviously intact because they were never even seen by the CGHS vet despite the fact that their search warrant specifically stated"all animals need to be retained as evidence."
Ive asked myself whom these people that they know so well are and how they were pre-approved for adoption of animals that were not even in their care or custody yet? Thats something I would find interesting to know, but likely never will.
Apparently the law does not apply to them and the Judge's orders from the start were ignored because they have their own agenda. 
I do not know Dawn but I do have verifiable sources close to this situation and I made the decision early on to follow the story and see how it plays out before making any judgments either way. 
Sit, Stays earlier post intrigued me regarding the horses because of the similarities but I feel in that case it was accusations and in this case its grand larceny. (JMHO).
I too will be waiting to hear more, not that I am sure I want to hear more because their actions are appalling and this case could set legal precedence that affects breeders far and wide for decades. Very scary. 
Its like COPS "gone wild."
When and how will it end for everyone most importantly the dogs?
I guess we will all have to wait and see as of right now I know for a fact some Sherriff's deputy's , their families and other breeders including some competitors have some pretty valuable dogs for a mere $105 adoption fee and a handshake.


----------



## selzer

AKC is just a registry. 

But one would think that having the registration paperwork, vet bills, microchip, license information would be enough to prove that you own your dog. 

I hope it is. 

I can understand a breeder giving a retired breeding dog to a friend or a good home and not transferring the papers in hopes that the dog would not be used as a breeding animal, in the event that that person chose to sell the dog. That would mean the original owners would have the papers, but would not own the dog.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

Needing Advise said:


> Why don't you contact CGHS & ask them, I always thought that too.
> I would do it myself but they won't talk to me or answer any of my questions.


I would not waste my time calling to ask questions, dozens have called already and gone in person and each time they were given different info. It depends on who you are, who you are talking to and what day of the week it is. 
Their statements don't hold water. 
You know they are lying when their lips start moving, not much different from Ron Perez.......very discouraging.
I am sorry for what are going through.
I do not know Dawn but from what I have heard this was a shock to those that did know her personally.
I can't speak to what went wrong in that situation but can see pretty clearly all that has gone wrong since and continues to go so very wrong. 
I hope the facts in this case , instead of speculation or hearsay continue to come to light and to be exposed. 
I feel that would be in the best interest of all involved most importantly the dogs. 
This has affected so many and I've read here along with other posts and forums that people not even involved have lost sleep over this.
I feel for you and what you must be going through.


----------



## onyx'girl

What are they telling Kyle, the reporter that was following this? I wish he'd be more assertive in his investigation, but I bet his bosses are making him keep his distance.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> What are they telling Kyle, the reporter that was following this? I wish he'd be more assertive in his investigation, but I bet his bosses are making him keep his distance.


I haven't spoken to him yet. Saving him for last. I'll have Nando with me & photos of the dog their Vet recommended euthanasia for. The only dog that desperately needed help and was seized in the middle of taking his meds. From the 8th until the 14th of February he was taken from where he was being treated and taken to a Vet who not only was wrong when he guessed at what caused it and wrong again by giving him the wrong medicine. Win or Lose, I will go public to warn people to be very careful where you put your beloved pets, this could & does happen to innocent people who love their dogs.


----------



## Blanketback

I want to see a copy of GCHS's Code of Ethics. I've googled 'SPCA code of ethics' and found many pages, but not one for them. Do they not have one? No qualms about conflict of interest? Aren't they obligated to abide by certain standards? This is all unbelievable, and they should be put under a microscope if this is even close to what's going on.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

onyx'girl said:


> What are they telling Kyle, the reporter that was following this? I wish he'd be more assertive in his investigation, but I bet his bosses are making him keep his distance.


Why would they do that? What fear should anyone have in the truth coming out? Unless, someone has something to hide? Or is it in fear of the truth being exposed which could possibly make their life and career a living **** in that community in which they have to work . It will be interesting to see if Kyle still wants to be involved now that certain facts are coming to light . I'm interested to hear . He has always been very objective, but now he has gone silent.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

I wish EJQ, who was there and knows the situation, was able to come back to this thread. 

needing advice - is your son is the individual mentioned in the initial articles? 

I guess it only seems like common sense to me that you need to know where your dog is going, particularly if it's more than overnight. 

Hoping that substantiated information will be established, rather than believing everyone on social media. It happens over and over, we've seen it on this board, but I guess we will never learn to question who people really are. 

As always, when people and money are involved, animals lose. Hoping for the best, and for solid pet homes for these dogs, they deserve to not be someone's cash cow anymore.


----------



## onyx'girl

Fran Kerrigan said:


> Why would they do that? What fear should anyone have in the truth coming out? Unless, *someone has something to hide*? Or is it in* fear of the truth being exposed which could possibly make their life and career a living **** in that community in which they have to work *. It will be interesting to see if Kyle still wants to be involved now that certain facts are coming to light . I'm interested to hear . He has always been very objective, but now he has gone silent.


Yup


----------



## Blanketback

It does take a special kind of person to fight the system. Their sense of justice has to overide their sense of security, and they have to be very driven to keep fighting when others block their path. But those people are out there - we need someone like that to get involved here.


----------



## TAR HEEL MOM

I haven't kept up with this case, and certainly have no judgements to pass due to my lack of knowledge. However, I just looked at those pictures and my heart is broken for those poor dogs. How deplorable that such noble animals were in those conditions..for whatever reason.

I do hope the rightful owners get their dogs back and soon. Beyond that I just hope justice prevails in whatever conclusion is correct and true.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

EJQ said:


> Here's what I know! Firstly I have long been involved in placing GSDs that for one reason or other are no longer able stay in their present situations. When I learned of the surrender I contacted Ron Perez and offered help in placing some of the dogs in new homes once they were to be released. I went to the CGHS the day after they arrived at the facility. I did state in an earlier post what I witnessed that day. I got to see about 29 dogs including ALL of the babies. Police agencies from three surrounding counties have put requests in for the babies. To my knowledge none of the dogs have been released. When Ron told me that there was a court order in the case I pretty much backed off my search for potential adopting families. I have to tell you this; I was shocked by the condition of the dogs. Because they were cleaned up a bit they were sort of fluffy and didn't look too bad. That was until I touched them. There were six beautiful female puppies that I thought to be about six or seven months old. Turns out they were all about TWO years old and not one weighed over 30 lbs. Sorry I guess I won't say anymore - you just had to be there. Mind you this was all prior to the court order. It's a bit upsetting to hear all the bitching from people who live hundreds of miles away and have no idea what's going on.


 EJQ, I find your post on the ages and weights of the dogs interesting. It is my knowledge and belief that there were four 6 month old females, and two 7 month old females. I do not believe Dawn owned or housed six 2 year olds. So how did you come to the conclusion they were 2 years old when their names and ages hadn't even been identified yet? Was it your personal opinion? or was it told to you by CGHS? Either way , its just another untruth being spread in a public forum with no personal knowledge of any of the dogs names, or ages as they were not even identified yet. I am certain the puppies you are speaking of, were exactly that puppies .


----------



## JakodaCD OA

You know, I'm sure there are alot of untruths being spread around by ALOT of different parties.

EJQ, was "there". Fran you admit you don't even know Dawn in a previous post, so how the heck would you know that she didn't house six 2 year olds? Because you don't 'believe' it, or because you "know" it?

In the end, pictures don't lie, people do, people speculate, the only ones that know the 'real' truth are the ones immediatly involved. 

I hope the REAL owners of the dogs , the ones not owned by Dawn, get their dogs back.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

I agree 100% that the dogs should be returned to their rightful owners, and I pray that happens. 
I do not know Dawn, but I do know, not believe "know" , that there were not six 2 year olds seized or surrendered. Two of my siblings do know Dawn personally, and one of them was actually present when the names and ages of the dogs were compiled for their identification which did not occur until Feb 28th. 
Hence my question to EJQ , because that post says she were there the day after the dogs were taken and what they thought were puppies were actually 2 year olds. I think its a good question. What facts were based on that conclusion? The SPCA did not know, or ask at that time who these dogs were, their names, ages, owners....nada. 
They should have and would have IMO if they had any intention of returning them to their rightful owners.
I truly am curious as to what led EJQ to the conclusion they were 2 years old? There were not six 2 year olds. So did she come to this conclusion on her own? Or was this another case of innaccurate info being provided by the SPCA to the public , only to be posted on an internet forum with no knowledge of the actual facts or identities of the dogs?


----------



## northwoodsGSD

JakodaCD OA said:


> In the end, pictures don't lie, people do, people speculate, *the only ones that know the 'real' truth are the ones immediatly involved. *
> 
> I hope the REAL owners of the dogs , the ones not owned by Dawn, get their dogs back.


Bolding is mine....

The thing with the above, is that most of those in the position to "know the facts" are hiding behind a bunch of under the table dealings & dirty back stabbing. So how is anyone supposed to believe what they say?

The dogs that have been placed with the breeders(that are friendly w/ the rescue... go figure) are already back in the show ring & have planned breedings with these dogs. Smells a bit fishy to me


----------



## Blanketback

northwoodsGSD said:


> The dogs that have been placed with the breeders(that are friendly w/ the rescue... go figure) are *already back in the show ring & have planned breedings with these dogs.*


*WHAT?!* Do you have proof of this? How absolutely unethical, if this is true.


----------



## jaggirl47

Blanketback, yes there is proof. 100% undeniable proof.


----------



## northwoodsGSD

Proof in writing...
This is Embroh, Frank states in the comments that he has a breeding planned with him.

This is Dante, at a show


----------



## onyx'girl

The shelter needs to step up and answer questions about their actions....the agenda is playing out just as planned


----------



## selzer

I think photos can lie. They can be photos of other dogs, in other places. They can be photos of dogs/crates taken days after the owner was allowed in to care for the dogs. They can be photos that have been doctored. They can show a moment in time, but may not give the overall impression.

I think it is pretty disgusting if the dogs that are seized have been handed out to other breeders to be show and bred under their kennel names. And that suggests strongly that the motives of the seizure may not have been as altruistic as we might want to believe. 

I guess since I really don't _know_ anything about the case, I will wait and see what happens in the court. 

When it is all said and done though, I would really like to know why the litters and dams were in crates like that, it seems dangerous as well as unsanitary. I guess I would rather hear that someone on the seizing team put them like that, than a breeder had them actually living like that.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

those links above do not lie..apparently, these two dogs atleast, are out in the show ring/going to be bred..

I agree, someone needs to stand up and do something about it,,soooo wrong


----------



## Needing Advise

northwoodsGSD said:


> Proof in writing...
> This is Embroh, Frank states in the comments that he has a breeding planned with him.
> 
> This is Dante, at a show


I am amazed at what is going on & how many people are involved in this unlawful seizure. Dante & Embroh sure recovered fast from a life & death situation (NOT)
IMO even the AKC is in on this, I just might be able to prove that too.
Oh God, what crooks. I pray to God I find a competent :Lawyer that is not afraid of suing the Police, Sheriffs, State Troopers, CGHS, CGHS Vet who misdiagnosed one of my dogs & his treatment, the AKC, and the list goes on & on. They are keeping me from even visiting my dogs which I haven't seen in months. I can't take much more of this. I am actually in therapy now and do not know what else to do.


----------



## Needing Advise

selzer said:


> I think photos can lie. They can be photos of other dogs, in other places. They can be photos of dogs/crates taken days after the owner was allowed in to care for the dogs. They can be photos that have been doctored. They can show a moment in time, but may not give the overall impression.
> 
> I think it is pretty disgusting if the dogs that are seized have been handed out to other breeders to be show and bred under their kennel names. And that suggests strongly that the motives of the seizure may not have been as altruistic as we might want to believe.
> 
> I guess since I really don't _know_ anything about the case, I will wait and see what happens in the court.
> 
> When it is all said and done though, I would really like to know why the litters and dams were in crates like that, it seems dangerous as well as unsanitary. I guess I would rather hear that someone on the seizing team put them like that, than a breeder had them actually living like that.


If Dawn kept those dogs in filthy crates with 2 - 3 inches of urine & feces for long periods of time I would think the pads of all their paws would be burned from the old urine & infected by the feces. Especially since some of those crates look very old & I'm sure the dogs would be scratching on the wires to get free from standing in that mess. Maybe CGHS Vet didn't think to put that in his records, he writes things about nails could use clipping.


----------



## Blanketback

Gov. Cuomo needs to be aware that when he made that change in legislation this past January, he was opening the door for this kind of abuse of power. These people _must_ be held accountable for their actions. I'd think there'd be an uproar over this, since it's stunningly obvious to me. Abuse of power is a horrible thing, and can't *ever* be tolerated.


----------



## onyx'girl

Sadly it is being tolerated....everyone seems to be sitting back and letting this happen. Is it due to intimidation?


----------



## Blanketback

Sure it would be because of intimidation. Who wants to fight authority? But does that condone a cover-up? Since when don't people want this type of abuse exposed? Yes, there are some people benefiting here, but that doesn't mean we have to allow it. This is disgusting! I don't know Gov. Cuomo personally, but I'd bet he wouldn't be happy if he knew this was the outcome of his decision. I'm certain that he was thinking of helping animals that needed help, not letting people help themselves to animals.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> Sadly it is being tolerated....everyone seems to be sitting back and letting this happen. Is it due to intimidation?


Yes, they are very threatening. We have spent thousands of dollars and have gotten no where. The longer this goes on the more money it is costing and the very valuable Vom Hunter Haus dogs are already gone. My dogs are not like Dante, Embroh or Caylee, not even close but they are worth millions to me, millions which I just don't have to get them back. I can tell this is not going to be a win for us and so far the dogs have to stay in CGHS and this is not fair especially for the dogs I truly love. I invited them to come & visit to check out where these dogs live, they are not interested. CGHS has a restraining order against us to stop us from going to check up on our dogs. The Judge signed this! How in the world is that fair? What is going to happen to my dogs? Where will they end up? I won't even be allowed to say goodbye to them? Do they understand why they are there, do they think I abandoned them? I love them with all my heart & soul and I just pray that somehow Justice will prevail and I will see them running in my yard when I wake up from this horrible nightmare.


----------



## onyx'girl

Get a facebook page set up, there is power in social media.


----------



## Blanketback

I also pray that justice will prevail. 

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Needing Advise

Check out these links, people are telling me the owner of Zeus has friendly connections with the same Humane Society that has my dogs. I don't know if this is true but it would not surprise me. This is the poor senior dog who is kept outside 24/7 for all the days of his life? Why do they have him? He is chained and old & it's just not fair. It's his life that is in danger, my dogs lives were not in danger.
How could they not give Zeus a better home & just leave him there. I guess his chances of being adopted out are just not that good but a young PB German Shepherd would be easy.
Shame on everyone who has the chance of saving Zeus but think this is acceptable.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=88822113077&story_fbid=10151611473808078

Fate of Taghkanic’s Zeus the dog is an ongoing issue

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=88822113077&story_fbid=10151611473808078


----------



## onyx'girl

I've posted questions on the shelter's fb page. I wonder when they'll delete it, they obviously aren't going to answer my questions. https://www.facebook.com/CGHS.org/posts/844607202222976?comment_id=8757051&notif_t=like


----------



## Blanketback

“Zeus is perfectly safe. He is in great health for his age and continues to stay safe,” Perez said.Fate of Taghkanic?s Zeus the dog is an ongoing issue - Columbia-Greene Media: News

So in other words, if Dawn had left the dogs outside during the blizzards, instead of using filthy crates, then Perez wouldn't have had an issue with their care? Wow, this is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Needing Advise

Blanketback said:


> “Zeus is perfectly safe. He is in great health for his age and continues to stay safe,” Perez said.Fate of Taghkanic?s Zeus the dog is an ongoing issue - Columbia-Greene Media: News
> 
> So in other words, if Dawn had left the dogs outside during the blizzards, instead of using filthy crates, then Perez wouldn't have had an issue with their care? Wow, this is beyond ridiculous.


exactly


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> I've posted questions on the shelter's fb page. I wonder when they'll delete it, they obviously aren't going to answer my questions. https://www.facebook.com/CGHS.org/posts/844607202222976?comment_id=8757051&notif_t=like


They won't answer you, I went there & spoke to Ron Perez before I was informed there was a restraining order. I told him to give his Vet a message from me regarding Nando, the dog with the ear infection & opened wound. Thank God we didn't go by his advice by putting him to sleep. 2nd & 3rd opinions of Vets that are competent & truly care about dogs that are loved disagree with his opinion. All he needed was a culture so that the correct medication could be administered. Thank God for Grand Gorge Animal Hospital & Belmar/Wall Animal Hospital. If we believed what Chathams Small Animal Hospital was recommending Nando would not be alive today. He is running, eating like a horse, kissing me everyday. Due to his severe allergies I'm back to baking for him again, it's the only way he will take his meds. Flax, coconut flour, eggs, he loves his special treats and is back to being very spoiled, I can't even leave to bring the garbage out without him insisting he come with me. He will never leave my sight again. If ever I go away he will be watched in my home. How do I post pictures of him? He's shedding like crazy & I don't even bother putting the vacuum away this time of year. He might not look that great to some of you but to me he is the most handsome boy I know. I am so proud of him, he makes me laugh & cry both at the same time.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> Get a facebook page set up, there is power in social media.


Great idea, I want Nando's story out there. IMO they would have spread all over the news that it was too late for Nando and he lost his life to neglect from not being treated for weeks. Dawn had him on the same EXACT antibiotic, same EXACT dosage and she did inform me that this time it was not working so pick him up cause he needed to be home & have culture done. They took him, waited approx. one week telling my son he only had a slight ear infection, before getting him treatment. When they operate the put him right back on something that did nothing. Sorry I keep repeating myself but I still don't believe it. I am going to put my boy on facebook, he could very well save other senior dogs from death.


----------



## Needing Advise

If someone gives Zeus a makeover & make him look like a German Shepherd who has titles & Schutzhund trains him my bet is right now he would be nice & warm either riding around in the back seat of a patrol car or else given to a breeder who they have ties to. Poor Zeus, May God protect him. Also would like to know why Buddy, the only mix breed dog they seized is still at the shelter & his picture wasn't even up on their site until I brought it to their attention. I can't believe out of 400 applications no one wants him. His name is buddy, he's 2 or 3 years old and is mixed with Rottie. CGHS thought he was purebred & asked Dawn why he is missing his tail. His name is Buddy cause that's what he was to Dawn. Please spread the word if someone wants him he is available for adoption at CGHS.


----------



## Blanketback

She also had her cat taken. You'd think they could meet in the middle and at least release the animals that are no use to them, since follow-up visits aren't unheard of. This is so incredibly sad.


----------



## Needing Advise

Blanketback said:


> She also had her cat taken. You'd think they could meet in the middle and at least release the animals that are no use to them, since follow-up visits aren't unheard of. This is so incredibly sad.


He was adopted (the cat) who was never sick a day in his life, he weighed over 15 pounds and he loved the dogs and the dogs loved him. He went to a new home & now I heard he's sick. He got sick about a week after she adopted him, whatever he has he caught it from the old shelter they had him in. He has a facebook page. So many people have cats and think a GSD will not get along with them. Well, Simba ruled those Shepherds and the Shepherds let Simba think he was the boss. I witnessed a litter being born at Dawn's house years ago, the Shepherd would not let me anywhere near the newborn pups, Simba went strolling in to get a up close smell of the pups, When Hannah (GSD) growled to say "Don't come any closer" Simba got up on her hind legs without her claws out and smacked Hannah a couple of times across the muzzle. Hannah then layed down and Simba inspected each pup and proudly walked out. Now he's sick & it makes me sick.


----------



## Needing Advise

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I wish EJQ, who was there and knows the situation, was able to come back to this thread.
> 
> needing advice - is your son is the individual mentioned in the initial articles?
> 
> I guess it only seems like common sense to me that you need to know where your dog is going, particularly if it's more than overnight.
> 
> Hoping that substantiated information will be established, rather than believing everyone on social media. It happens over and over, we've seen it on this board, but I guess we will never learn to question who people really are.
> 
> As always, when people and money are involved, animals lose. Hoping for the best, and for solid pet homes for these dogs, they deserve to not be someone's cash cow anymore.


My son is not mentioned in any of the articles, my son called CGHS non stop for many days before receiving a call back. In that phone call he gave them Nando's chip#, they claimed non of the dogs seized had that chip#. I called the Vet where it was done & they verified we had the correct #. My son was cursed at, called a liar, they freaked out when he started giving them our dogs names & information. They called him a liar & claim that everybody is claiming to own all the dogs and that all the dogs belong to them, then they hung up on him. He called right back to beg them to listen especially regarding Nando, how important it was for him to be on a specific grain free food and how worried we were because he needed immediate care at our Vet. He was then told that they know which dog he was talking about & two of the dogs had SLIGHT ear infections. Did you see the face & ear of our poor dog? It was so apparent he needed help, why didn't they see his bloody infected wound? How could they miss his severe ear infection that was dripping from his left ear? After they decided it was best to put him out of his misery is when they gave him back to us. It was killing us that he wasn't getting proper treatment. The kicker was when Ron Perez said on a interview that one of the dogs were immediately given back to their rightful owner, that had to be Nando he was talking about. My poor dog was under Ron's control from February 8th until March 7th, that's not immediate!


----------



## jaggirl47

I just confirmed this morning that 3 more dogs were placed, intact, with another GSD breeder in Massachusetts.


----------



## Blanketback

Placed intact. What a wonderful gift! 
If this doesn't scream "corrupt" then I don't know _what_ does.


----------



## onyx'girl

They obviously are above the law. I can't believe the community isn't watchdogging this shelter's staff.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> They obviously are above the law. I can't believe the community isn't watchdogging this shelter's staff.


Police, Sheriffs & State Troopers were given fully trained K9 dogs for free. Who's watching who? They are all in it together. Four given immediately to people they knew personally, 6 went to a trainer to be evaluated (They knew what these dogs could do) Some of these same dogs marched in a Parade for K9 police dogs a few years back, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a planned raid to take control of dogs that the county didn't approve the money to buy them, so they found another way to get them for free. Corruption by the finest


----------



## Blanketback

That's why Gov. Cuomo should be apprised of the situation. He's the one that changed how things are done in New York State. He changed it so that each municipality can make their own laws, rather than going by state law. There's no way I can believe that he changed this to allow those in power the right to be exempt from purchasing their own animals, and give them the unchallenged authority to claiming those belonging to others. That's unjustifiable. Wouldn't that be considered theft? How can this still be unresolved?


----------



## onyx'girl

Or go to the Attorney General.


----------



## Jax08

Needing Advise said:


> *Police, Sheriffs & State Troopers were given fully trained K9 dogs for free.* Who's watching who? They are all in it together. Four given immediately to people they knew personally, 6 went to a trainer to be evaluated (They knew what these dogs could do) Some of these same dogs marched in a Parade for K9 police dogs a few years back, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a planned raid to take control of dogs that the county didn't approve the money to buy them, so they found another way to get them for free. Corruption by the finest


Fully trained K9's? Or Schutzhund trained dogs?


----------



## BowWowMeow

The attorney general is definitely the one who needs to be notified. You would also do well to find a good investigative reporter to dig into this (and be aware that no one is going to come out smelling like roses). 

I'm confused about one thing: Have the owners not joined together to file a civil suit to get their dogs back?


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

The Attorney General and the FBI should both be notified IMO. This is a scandal of collusion . Everyone is involved..... all in "it", together. I saw a post earlier of PDB from "Susie" at 13:04 today and I quote 
"For both dogs there is no offspring listed on PDB or elsewhere ( at least I wasn´t able to find any ). That said we are talking about a 6 year old male and a young coated male, who were not used as studs much or not at all. The new owner will not make "big money" with them, no Uran, no Zamp, just normal males." 
She states she checked the PDB and these were just "Normal" males . Looks like she checked for progeny but never bother to check the perigree's since she states they are not "BIG MONEY" males because they don't have Uran , or Zamp. For your information "Susie" from PDB if you bothered to check Dante is a direct grandson of Zamp and a well known Internationally campaigned show dog, just like Zamp. He has been shown and won in four countries. He is number #5 LC Male in the World at the BSZS World Show in Germany. No "BIG MONEY"? PLEASE! The dog just turned 3 in January and has been shown and Internationally campaigned so he obviously would not have any progeny. Unless he was sitting at home in his crate making puppies and barely surviving like the media has portrayed. I for one am outraged. Dont even get me started on Embroh. : (


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

The facts just don't add up. There is obviously something going on behind the scenes and yet we have heard nothing from Dawn. I have heard that she is unable to speak to anyone because of the pending court case but yet people seem to forget that only one side of the story is being told here. Only one side has been in the press and the media . And, IMO it does not look good for them or their ethical or moral values. Something corrupt is happening right before our eyes and we are all watching to "see what happens"?
I wanted to watch to see how this all played out , but now it concerns me. The SPCA has shown their true motives IMO and I am hard pressed not to want to stand up and challenge . What ever happened to due process? I don't believe Dawn has even been arraigned yet. When I last spoke to my siblings I heard that arraingment was scheduled for next Tuesday? Perhaps she will plead not guilty? And then what? What could she possibly fight for? Her animals which are evidence in this case are all gone being shown, bred, or living on couches wherever they are. 
Please look up the Constitution and your ammendment rights regarding due process. It just doesnt seem right to me, any of it!


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

BowWowMeow said:


> The attorney general is definitely the one who needs to be notified. You would also do well to find a good investigative reporter to dig into this (and be aware that no one is going to come out smelling like roses).
> 
> I'm confused about one thing: Have the owners not joined together to file a civil suit to get their dogs back?


My understanding is the owners have hired an attorney which they have already paid in excess of $12K , the SPCA ( specifically Ron Perez)has refused to comply with the "stay". His argumeent was after saying these dogs "all belong to us" blah blah blah, is that the Greene County Court that issued the warrant had no jurisdiction because they moved the animals to CGHS which is in Columbia County. A second 5 week old puppy was " adopted out" before he recognized thier jurisdiction and removed that puppy from its mother and siblings. It is illegal in the State of NY for this to happen , but apparently those laws don't apply to the SPCA. Horrifying IMO


----------



## selzer

If these were children and not dogs, the parents would have their kids back by now, and the public wouldn't give a darn. 

Have you seen the kids on Hoarders? The living conditions? How they work with these people to improve the conditions so that the children will not be taken away. It is crazy how we are so much more worried about dogs (well purebred expensive dogs), than children. 

Oh yeah, you can't sell or give kids to your buddies.


----------



## Needing Advise

Jax08 said:


> Fully trained K9's? Or Schutzhund trained dogs?


Schutzhund, that is what I believe
But now I've heard a few are K9 & in patrol cars, one in Windham I think I heard quite a while ago.


----------



## Fran Kerrigan

selzer said:


> If these were children and not dogs, the parents would have their kids back by now, and the public wouldn't give a darn.
> 
> Have you seen the kids on Hoarders? The living conditions? How they work with these people to improve the conditions so that the children will not be taken away. It is crazy how we are so much more worried about dogs (well purebred expensive dogs), than children.
> 
> Oh yeah, you can't sell or give kids to your buddies.


Good point Selzer. I thought of this too, had this been a day care center raided would the best kids be adopted out overnight to their friends who couldn't have or produce kids like that on their own? Or would there truly be stricter laws enforced. IMO Cuomo's laws are not doing what they were designed to do. Especailly not in this case and what happens when we all sit and watch while case precedence is set. Ouch!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

BowWowMeow said:


> The attorney general is definitely the one who needs to be notified. You would also do well to find a good investigative reporter to dig into this (and be aware that no one is going to come out smelling like roses).
> 
> I'm confused about one thing: Have the owners not joined together to file a civil suit to get their dogs back?


Agree - attorney general and cc the NYS Department of Ag & Markets. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

I am sure there is an "action team" on the news stations there who goes for this kind of thing. Durham, New York (NY 12423) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news list of stations at the bottom. Problem is - where is the sympathetic character in all of this - the only ones are the dogs, so I'd be looking for an animal advocate not related to any of the people in this situation (the shelter or the owners of these dogs) to tell this story, because no one who cares about dogs (and it will be people in NYS who will matter most in terms of policy) can relate to anyone who deals with their dogs like this. Bringing out the injustice of dogs being taken and not going to homes where they will be loved companions, but being (sold? given away? not following procedure that is for sure - and is sub-set and a huge angle that is the underlying story) used to make money for other people - that will not sit well with people and that's the story to be told. 

While I still feel that the dogs were in horrible conditions and that was inexcusable (opened the door to all. of. this.) I am equally sickened by this turn of events. 

In other areas, the landlord would have gone in, gotten horrified, called animal control, dogs would be seized, released by owner or not, and then things would have gone from there with good rescues and the shelter (likely shelter - adoptable dogs up their stats) speutering all before adoption if the dogs were turned over or not returned. 

Unreal.


----------



## Blanketback

Totally unreal. And I really hate the fact that some people think that what they did was fine, as far as placing the dogs with their friends and associates. Yes, I agree that having to house 39 dogs all at one time would have been tough, but WHY were the rescues that stepped up to help turned away? That's telling of the situation right there, say no more. This is so disgusting.


----------



## Needing Advise

Does anyone here know who Joyce Ainsworth is?
Is she a Judge at shows?


----------



## Needing Advise

BowWowMeow said:


> The attorney general is definitely the one who needs to be notified. You would also do well to find a good investigative reporter to dig into this (and be aware that no one is going to come out smelling like roses).
> 
> I'm confused about one thing: Have the owners not joined together to file a civil suit to get their dogs back?


Yes, there are 3 different people, all three of us are trying our best to get our dogs returned. I feel badly for one person because I believe her two pups are gone, adopted out. There are probably other owners & co-owners also but I don't think they are up to the challenge of getting their dogs back. I feel really bad for the co-owner of Dante too. She paid to have him trained and he lived with her in another country for most of his life. Co-owning in the case shows that breeder friends are becoming enemies. She truly loves Dante and he loves her and that's who he should be with. I sure hope I get my dogs returned, I have to be grateful for getting Nando but what he had to go thru and amount of time it took when it was life/death situation was not fair to him.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Please remember that this is a public forum and anything you post on here can be read by anyone so please do use caution when posting unsubstantiated "facts," and even details and feelings about your own situation. Ultimately that is not going to help remedy this situation. 

Something is terribly wrong here and the people affected need to get together as a group, privately, and make a plan of action and then network with other individuals, organizations and groups who might be able to help you. 

I think it is very important to get an investigation going through the media and also to go through the attorney general's office and, as Jean suggested the state department of Agriculture. This is outside the jurisdiction of the FBI. 

I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## Needing Advise

BowWowMeow said:


> Please remember that this is a public forum and anything you post on here can be read by anyone so please do use caution when posting unsubstantiated "facts," and even details and feelings about your own situation. Ultimately that is not going to help remedy this situation.
> 
> Something is terribly wrong here and the people affected need to get together as a group, privately, and make a plan of action and then network with other individuals, organizations and groups who might be able to help you.
> 
> I think it is very important to get an investigation going through the media and also to go through the attorney general's office and, as Jean suggested the state department of Agriculture. This is outside the jurisdiction of the FBI.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck.


Thank you


----------



## Msmaria

Breeders and boarders everywhere should get together . This could be coming to a city close to you soon, if this is allowed to happen. Very sad.


----------



## onyx'girl

Looks like Kyle is still reporting on this. Sad that is dragging now into June. 
Verdeschi, Cella plead not guilty in dog case - The Daily Mail: News

To reach reporter Kyle Adams, call 518-943-2100, ext. 3323, or e-mail [email protected].


----------



## onyx'girl

So much quiet on this case....has it gone to trial yet? If so, what was the outcome?


----------



## BowWowMeow

What ever happened with this case? I can't find anything online about it past April.


----------



## gsdsar

I was just thinking about this case. Wonder what happened.


----------



## QballK

I think there is a "good reason" why it is kept quiet considering how it was handled.


----------



## Jax08

I think there will be a lot of information that comes out after the court dates that will stop the accusations that these dogs were "stolen" from the breeder. I have some information but I won't share it publicly and only with people who aren't prone to gossip.


----------



## onyx'girl

when are the court dates? This thing sure has dragged on.


----------



## Jax08

It sure has. Several court dates and delays have come and gone. I don't know when Dawn's criminal trial is.


----------



## QballK

Jax08 said:


> I think there will be a lot of information that comes out after the court dates that will stop the accusations that these dogs were "stolen" from the breeder. I have some information but I won't share it publicly and only with people who aren't prone to gossip.


Not sure if anyone ever suggested the dogs were stolen from the breeder. There were co owners involved, leased studs, sold puppies and that is where a lot of confusion came from.


----------



## huntergreen

any update on all these dogs?


----------



## Jax08

QballK said:


> Not sure if anyone ever suggested the dogs were stolen from the breeder. There were co owners involved, leased studs, sold puppies and that is where a lot of confusion came from.


None if this is proven facts. The only "fact" here is that all of what you said is disputed.


----------



## BrysonsMom

Fact: The Judge ruled this was an illegal search and seizure and DISMISSED all charges.


----------



## BrysonsMom

gsdsar said:


> I was just thinking about this case. Wonder what happened.


The Judge ruled it was an illegal search and seizure and dismissed all charges.


----------



## onyx'girl

yet the dogs are all in new homes/breeding kennels, the owner never got her dogs back, did she?


----------



## BrysonsMom

onyx'girl said:


> yet the dogs are all in new homes/breeding kennels, the owner never got her dogs back, did she?


My understanding is that would require a civil suit. Very Sad.


----------



## onyx'girl

Or not....maybe the dogs are in a better place, hopefully they are.


----------



## BrysonsMom

I just think the entire ordeal sets a very bad case precedence. Especially if the co-owners do not get their dogs returned. What the SPCA did and continues to get away with is immoral and unethical. IMO they are the ones that should be prosecuted and broke much more serious laws . I have watched this thread and followed this case. It wasn't until I received confirmation the case was dismissed, that I decided to join and post a factual update . I was very interested to see what would be said now. I have seen so many post pure speculation . I think its very sad. I certainly hope you are right and that all dogs are in a better place. But I seriously doubt that....Their is at least one that I know of still that was still in foster care when it escaped and was killed by a car. The SPCA is still unable to identify , or simply refuses too so the co owners do not even know which one of their dogs is dead and will never have a chance to even say good bye....


----------



## RunShepherdRun

BrysonsMom said:


> Fact: The Judge ruled this was an illegal search and seizure and DISMISSED all charges.


BrysonsMom, Do you have a reference for this? I googled and the most recently dated news I found was from Jan. 2015:
Seven dogs remain in limbo as court battle drags on


----------



## wolfstraum

BrysonsMom said:


> I just think the entire ordeal sets a very bad case precedence. Especially if the co-owners do not get their dogs returned. What the SPCA did and continues to get away with is immoral and unethical. IMO they are the ones that should be prosecuted and broke much more serious laws . I have watched this thread and followed this case. It wasn't until I received confirmation the case was dismissed, that I decided to join and post a factual update . I was very interested to see what would be said now. I have seen so many post pure speculation . I think its very sad. I certainly hope you are right and that all dogs are in a better place. But I seriously doubt that....Their is at least one that I know of still that was still in foster care when it escaped and was killed by a car. The SPCA is still unable to identify , or simply refuses too so the co owners do not even know which one of their dogs is dead and will never have a chance to even say good bye....


This whole thing is scary as the proverbial hot place!!!! It can happen to anyone with dogs who makes an enemy who is vindictive and amoral.....so very very sad....

Lee


----------



## Needing Advise

I was one of the owners. I got one dog back. All the rest are gone. One puppy that was 3 days old was killed by a car while in Foster care. I never even got the chance to hold him. CGHS & their friends now have my beautiful dogs. They are intact, being bred & shown by their new owners (who happen to be involved with the AKC) I have spent thousands on fighting this case to the bitter end. I was denied to Foster my own dogs. I am thankful I got my oldest dog back. Nando (the one with the infected ear & face) There are a few reasons I got him back, 1. There Vet wanted to put him to sleep. 2. He was unpredictable with new people, I begged them to put him back on his Meds & not to give him just any dog food due to the fact he had severe allergies for 10 years. They made him suffer for over a month before letting me have him back. I had chips, bills of sale & none of that mattered for my young healthy ones. I will never be the same and have lost all faith in our "Justice System" Even though all the charges were dismissed against the people boarding my dogs & pups, I still lose them. Ron Perez lied under oath on the stand in Court, the Judge didn't give a ****. All the Judge wanted was to have his lunch. Sadly Nando is now gone too, but I have to be happy about our last year together. He went to his very favorite park everyday, & even though it's walking distance I drove cause car rides was also something he loved. He suffered a massive stroke, he was born on Valentines Day in 2005 & will always be part of my heart. I'm happy he lived over a year since he was finally given back to me. I will not be answering questions some of you I'm sure want to ask but I will tell you this. My dogs were boarded with people they knew & loved, they swam in their lake, ran in the snow, played, ate & loved the people I choose to leave them with. What happened to them is worse then what happened to me. Even though all the charges were dismissed all their dogs are gone. Their Civil rights were violated. Wish all these dogs could have come to court & let the dogs go to the ones they loved.


----------



## Needing Advise

The pup that was killed by a car was only 3 days old when CGHS seized him, his siblings along with his Mom.
I was informed he was dead approx. 6 months later.
I still pray this isn't true and maybe the Foster home loved him so much and feared I would win him back in court.
I just know if they would have let me "Foster" my own dogs this pup would still be alive today.


----------



## Needing Advise

onyx'girl said:


> Or not....maybe the dogs are in a better place, hopefully they are.


One of the fostered pups was found dead on the side of a road. Not such a happy ending for this poor innocent pup.


----------

