GSD breeder arrested in CT - Page 9

Blitzen,

That's why I stated "It appears........ and I could be misreading though."  I'm glad.

Again, I agree with workingdogz. Today's breeders need to go above and beyond.

The abuse case I have referred to here could have been stopped when there were "only" 100+ dogs involved. Other breeders visited this kennel, saw the abuse, turned a blind eye until it got so bad that the local AC could no longer ignore the complaints from local puppy buyers.  IMO the worst affront is that he was reported to AKC, they inspected him 2 years ago and found nothing serious enough to prefer any charges. 

I can't get into details of what was going on with all these dogs, suffice to say most here would have been nauseated and in tears knowing what these dogs lived through for many years.  Fortunately this is a  very resilient breed; almost every dog is friendly and eligible for adoption assuming they gain a good state of health. GSD's by nature are very susceptable to abuse. I doubt  many GSD's could have weathered that storm wihout become depressed for lack of human contact. My guess is, if these were GSD's, most of the 200 dogs would need to be destroyed due to broken spirits and broken hearts. GSD's should never be warehoused and deprived of human contact. They may survive, but they will not thrive.
 
Do it right, keep your own counsel, try to help those who don't and if they refuse, do what you need to do to stop the abuse. Dont worry about what the enablers think of you. 

The animals have no voice.

Regarding nails, it's pretty easy to see the difference between long nails that are in the process of being trimmed/ground down slowly to allow the quick to recede, and nails that are long and not maintained; especially on dogs that are kept on surfaces that do not allow their nails to wear down naturally. A glance at the dewclaw is an excellent indicator of whether these nails are being trimmed, or left alone. I would like to think animal control, or the inspecting agency, can tell the difference between nails in-progress, and nails neglected.

I've grown up in CT. I've volunteered at local animal shelters for many years & fosters dogs. The CT AC is not out to take people's / breeder's dogs away from them. Most shelters are over whelmed with lack of space / funding / staff / volunteers compare to the large demands.
I don't know this breeder that was recently charged or the condition of her dogs.

In 2008 another GSD breeder was charged with animal cruelty in CT. He also bred Lab's & various birds. I did know this breeder / people he sold puppies to & worked with the state to help against the breeder & find safety for the dogs. I took in many dogs until they were able to be adopted out, & provided other support. The AC did not do anything above the law, & remain professional at all times.

AC & AKC were watching this person for many years. The AC received countless complaints on sick puppies purchased from him a year. Also complaints on the adult dogs conditions they seen. The dogs originally were kept in large kennel runs & were in good condition. But over the years the kennels got smaller as the numbers increased & the care went drastically down.

This breeder had all paper work recorded, kept all licenses up to date, followed the minimum care guidelines for the sate. He had numerous inspections both surprised & scheduled by AC / AKC over many years. AC was quietly building their case through there years just waiting.
Most of the local breeder all knew this breeder & considered him to be on puppy mill status.

I tried helping the dogs & took a few for much needed medical care the breeder was not willing to provide. Those poor dogs ran into my car & were over joy when we pulled off the property. I'm still haunted by imagines of many of those dogs.

This breeder did not get his dogs back. He was charged huge fines for each animal, plus the care given to each animal while the case was in trail was also fined. The CT AC contacted the IRS who also step in & put a lean / took on his home / property for years of unpaid tax $ from the sale of puppies. The IRS attached his pay checks to make sure the animal cruelty charges would be paid also. The judge ruled he may not own or have any animal on his property again for the duration of his & his wife's rest of life. If they are found with any animals they will be charge + fined & animal taken away.

You can read more here http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14990/CT/US/ 
 

I can only hope that the case I am following has a similar ending, Hudson. I wish it happened in CT.

Blitzen, I hope the case you are following works out for the best for the animals as well & the owner doesn't get the chance to have it happen again. Very sad always for the animals in the end.

I have read this thread through, and something which strikes me as a little unnerving is the stance and  apparent 'resistance' of some posters to what I would consider basic fundamental *rights* of all animals, for example as in this excerpt, where a particular poster seemed almost offended by these requirements:

"caging" requirements are amazing! Small excerpts:
If caged (crated) for transport etc, the dog must be permitted to exercise no less than twice daily, for a minimum of 30 minutes!

"Outdoor" housing ie kennel run:
A small sample: Single dog over 50lbs shall be kept in a pen no less than 8'x10'--not including shelter.

Other various snippets:
"animals shall have at least 10 hours of light per day"
"animals shall be brought indoors to shelter when temp is below 10F (real and effective temp)"


(Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted the meaning of the poster quoted above)
I would be horrified if the above wasn't routinely provided as the barest minimum for an animal. Like some others I have an ethical distaste for excessive crating, and stacking crated GSDs is worthy of a charge of animal abuse IMO except in an extreme crisis situation and then on a very temporary basis.  I have always disliked crates for the very reason that eventually a large number of people begin to abuse them. I doubt that is the initial intent, but it does happen, and those people learn to rationalise it.  I hate the concept of dogs *living* in crates, which so many seem to do now.  I would just say that I am in the UK, and our equivalent of 'animal control' laws are of course a little different,  but set out to prevent cruelty to animals and establish and implement animal welfare practises in the same way.

Abby Normal
Oh, I am not at all opposed to the bare minimal requirements, just sad to think we even need to have a law that outlines them!
My point in quoting some of them was show how minimal they were, and yet some people could not even provide THAT to a dog.

Some of the rules/regs from the city where I live that I quoted, are less than a bare minimum in my mind, and actually, common sense alone should kick in and people should not need to have rules like the above to follow, but sad to say, we do.

The regulations of our city are not the best, but at least it's a start! And I will say, our AC officers are pretty level headed but do NOT take crap from people.

Our POS neighbor had rabbits one year, he left them out in severe weather (blizzard) and they did not have adequate food, shelter nor water. I knocked on his door and asked him to please take them in after finding out at 10PM they were out in that crap, it was too extreme for them to be out, he told me to FO and get off his doorstep. I called AC, reported it, not anonymously either, and AC came at 1130PM and beat the crap out of his doors, he would not answer, so they started catching rabbits, after taking pics etc. He finally came outside and asked what they were doing, they gave him the option of bringing them in, or they would seize them. He said he would bring them in right away, he had to go put warm clothes on..they told him NO, NOW> the rabbits are out in it freezing, you will be too.

He brought them in and we could hear him screaming around 2AM when he found all the tickets they wrote him on his door
The rabbits were gone a couple weeks later, he got tired of AC coming and checking on him.

It is simply embarassing that laws on providing the barest of care need to be written, but without those, animals are really out of luck.

Thanks, Hudson!! Can you imagine - almost 200 dogs involved. That number is overwhelming.

CT § 53-247. Cruelty to animals. Animals engaged in exhibition of fighting. Intentional injury or killing of police animals or dogs in volunteer canine search and rescue teams

(a) Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal, or who, having impounded or confined any animal, fails to give such animal proper care or neglects to cage or restrain any such animal from doing injury to itself or to another animal or fails to supply any such animal with wholesome air, food and water, or unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to any domestic animal or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance, with intent that the same shall be taken by an animal, or causes it to be done, or, having charge or custody of any animal, inflicts cruelty upon it or fails to provide it with proper food, drink or protection from the weather or abandons it or carries it or causes it to be carried in a cruel manner, or fights with or baits, harasses or worries any animal for the purpose of making it perform for amusement, diversion or exhibition, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

I have listed section a only as it would be the only portion that would pertain to this case.

Also:
Sec. 22-350a. Tethering dog to stationary object or mobile device. Prohibited means. Retention of other protections afforded dogs. Confining or tethering dog for unreasonable period of time. Fines. (a) No person shall tether a dog to a stationary object or to a mobile device, including, but not limited to, a trolley or pulley by means of a: (1) Tether that does not allow such dog to walk at least eight feet, excluding the length of such dog as measured from the tip of such dog's nose to the base of such dog's tail, in any one direction, (2) tether that does not have swivels on both ends to prevent twisting and tangling, unless the owner or keeper of such dog is in the presence of such dog, (3) coat hanger, choke collar, prong-type collar, head halter or any other collar, halter or device that is not specifically designed or properly fitted for the restraint of such dog, (4) tether that has weights attached or that contains metal chain links more than one-quarter of an inch thick, or (5) tether that allows such dog to reach an object, including, but not limited to, a window sill, edge of a pool, fence, porch or terrace railing that poses a substantial risk of injury or strangulation to such dog if such dog jumps over such object, unless the owner or keeper of such dog is on the premises. The provisions of subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection shall not be construed to apply to: (A) Any veterinary practice licensed pursuant to section 20-197 that tethers a dog in the course of such veterinary practice, (B) any exhibition, show, contest or other temporary event in which the skill, breeding or stamina of such dog is judged or examined, (C) any exhibition, class, training session or other temporary event in which such dog is used in a lawful manner to hunt a species of wildlife during the hunting season for such species of wildlife or in which such dog receives training in a lawful manner to hunt such species of wildlife, (D) the temporary tethering of a dog at any camping or recreation area as expressly authorized by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, or (E) the temporary tethering of a dog at a grooming facility in the course of grooming such dog.

      (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any protection afforded to any dog pursuant to any other provision of the general statutes, regulations of the Connecticut state agencies, local ordinance or local regulation.

      (c) Any person who confines or tethers a dog for an unreasonable period of time or in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be fined one hundred dollars for the first offense, two hundred dollars for a second offense, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars or more than five hundred dollars for a third or subsequent offense.