GentleLake Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 People are in complete denial about puppy mills. They refuse to believe that pet store puppies come from puppy mills and often get duped by brokers who advertize pups and then "generously" offer to meet buyers half way to deliver the pups. I knew one woman who fell for that and refused to believe what I was telling her. She'd also been promised a non-shedding hypoallergenic dog and got a Corgipoo that shed like crazy. People need to take their blinders off, but there's just no way to legislate stupidity. As far as BC buyers go, I think most of them do know what they are, but are in just as much denial about breeding practices as other folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 For the most part, I think the general public doesn't care enough to stop them from buying PM pups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 The report from the vet is up on the Lexus page. It States shelter is not adequate to law, food, water is not adequate, there is a lack of proper paperwork for puppies sold and lack of care by a licensed veterinarian among other things. She also supposedly only had access to a small portion of the dogs. People never want to believe they were lied to or bought their perfect pup from a 'bad' place. How could it be a puppy mill when their dog is the best dog ever? They fail to see that it isn't about the quality of dog they think they bought. As long as people keep buying from these places they stay in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Posted on FB - From WNYT News Channel 13 - The SPCA is taking 40 of the 66 dogs from the farm in Sprakers, Montgomery County. The owner has two weeks to build new dog houses that meet minimum standards. ...If he does that, he can get some of the animals back. Dan Levy will have more on this story on our evening newscasts.>> Read more here: http://wnyt.tv/7456d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushdoggie Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Its annoying there are so many conflicting reports about this...I just read a report that he only had 4 of the Border Collies left on his property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 And I just hear the following: "There was a court hearing today at 2:00. The judge has ruled to let the puppy mill breeder keep them. The judge has sent 40 adult dogs to the SPCA to be temporarily housed until January 21 at which time the puppy mill breeder has to have improved his housing for them. I guess it is o.k. for the other 35 dogs that are left there to continue to live in suboptimal conditions. The puppy mill breeder has agreed to take the puppies inside his house during the frigid temperatures. Geesh, what a heck of a guy. Obviously, this solves nothing for the dogs as we all know that puppy mill breeders will continue to breed for money, until they are made to stop." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Here's another local news story: http://www.news10.com/story/24386098/judge-to-hear-complaints-against-montgomery-co-breeder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Here's another update - http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3272685.shtml It indicates that there may be charges. Who knows? This may go one way and then the other, but will it change anything for the better for the dogs and to reduce the production of pups from this puppy mill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The rescue I volunteer with has had some dogs from this miller in the past. Think Kelso if you want to know what our foster homes have had to deal with. We're trying to mobilize now, just in case we can get some of these dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Lexus Project, which are the ones in court for the dogs state that 4 adult dogs and puppies were left on the property. Puppies are to stay inside. But according to the news, 40 of 66 dogs have been removed. Does that mean they have 22 puppies currently? That is a lot of puppies to have on the ground at one time. I can only imagine what the mental state of these border collies are. They live small electrified pens and probably get no more human interaction than the time it takes to drop food, water and pick up poop every so often. I sure hope the owners don't just change their name, make a new site and go back into business again. They're set to get all dogs back by January 21. Hopefully someone can talk some sense into the owners and get them to surrender a good portion of their dogs and reduce numbers to something they can actually handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcv-border Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It is too bad that the judge is basically enabling this breeder's poor practices. I thought that interpretations of the law were based on what a 'reasonable person' would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawford Dogs Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Puppy mills are terribly sad things. Strangely enough clients bring their new "high quality" puppies in reguarly with tapeworms, fleas, and ringworm. $1200 for what? And of course, if they know it's from a puppy mill they proudly tell everyone how they "rescued" the puppy. Rescued by paying large sums of money? Confused in Iowa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Apparently the definition of "reasonable" doesn't mean very much. It is too bad that the judge is basically enabling this breeder's poor practices. I thought that interpretations of the law were based on what a 'reasonable person' would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Another news report: http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/features/top-story/stories/court-hears-case-potential-animal-neglect-13249.shtml#.Us1BeTK9KK0 This one is maddening. There's the glaring typo that no one caught ("owner was charged with failure to provide inadequate shelter". Emphasis added.), which will cause some idiot readers to think everything's OK. But the statement from the Lexus Project's lawyer is unbelievable! "'Having someone who will properly care for the dogs is in the dogs' best interest. Having them go into adoption only further taxes the resources of the SPCA and rescue groups,' said Richard Rosenthal, general counsel for The Lexus Project, which brought the case to court Tuesday." Yes, it will push the SPCA and rescues to their limits, but this is a puppy mill, people!! WTF?! How in doG's good name is it better to let a puppy mill continue to crank out puppies from dogs that will continue to be kept in substandard, albeit technically legal, conditions for the rest of their lives?! OK, so there's a modicum of help coming from these people, but not a whole lot. But, vent over, maybe it's really all they can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 31 of the seized dogs have been surrendered by the owner!!! Hopefully they will surrender the rest. I can't help but think, if they get back 35 more dogs, they will be in the same condition again in just a short time...except now with insulated houses. It must be costing a small fortune for this and I can't imagine why they should get the dogs back while donors and rescues pay for the care of their breeding dogs (that they live off of!). https://www.facebook.com/theanimalleague?ref=stream http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/features/top-story/stories/spca-removes-dogs-dog-breeder-13265.shtml They had 23 puppies there and of course those shih tzu's were in terrible shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtnfrank Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 From Glen Highland's Facebook: "Glen Highland Farm was asked by the Montgomery County SPCA to assist in the seizure of the Flat Creek Border Collies in Sprakers, NY. There are now 35 Border Collies in our care, with 25 of them fully surrendered to Rescue. Ten are in our care, awaiting court proceedings. Each dog is being fully evaluated by veterinarians and rescue staff with respect to their condition. A full report will be provided to the SPCA.The "Sprakers" dogs that are now part of GHF rescue are NOT available for adoption at this time. We will not be answering any inquiries at this time." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 These are probably the same sort of people that will say they "adopted" a puppy when they just simply purchased one. Words are important as they do convey a great deal of meaning to anyone who is listening. Puppy mills are terribly sad things. Strangely enough clients bring their new "high quality" puppies in reguarly with tapeworms, fleas, and ringworm. $1200 for what? And of course, if they know it's from a puppy mill they proudly tell everyone how they "rescued" the puppy. Rescued by paying large sums of money? Confused in Iowa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 From Glen Highland's Facebook: "Glen Highland Farm was asked by the Montgomery County SPCA to assist in the seizure of the Flat Creek Border Collies in Sprakers, NY. There are now 35 Border Collies in our care, with 25 of them fully surrendered to Rescue. Ten are in our care, awaiting court proceedings. Each dog is being fully evaluated by veterinarians and rescue staff with respect to their condition. A full report will be provided to the SPCA. The "Sprakers" dogs that are now part of GHF rescue are NOT available for adoption at this time. We will not be answering any inquiries at this time." In addition, if you'd like to help with the costs being incurred by Glen Highland Farm (also from their FB page https://www.facebook.com/GlenHighlandFarm): We are accepting donations for the care of the fully surrendered dogs. Your help will be greatly appreciated! Visit this link to make a donation online: http://www.glenhighlandfarm.com/556430/Order.htm OR our mailing address is: Glen Highland Farm 217 Pegg Road Morris, NY 13808 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Just curious, but are the fully surrended dogs ones that are past breeding age? Can't help but wonder what criteria were used for choosing what to surrender and what needs to go through the court system..... J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcv-border Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 To me, it sounds like the 'older' dogs (at least older than pups) were removed and surrendered, whereas the pups were allowed to stay with the breeder. An easy way for the breeder to cull the older dogs and streamline his operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If you're a NY resident and haven't already called Gov. Cuomo's office to ask him to sign into law the bill that proposes to allow local communities to oversee matters regarding animal welfare, specifically in the breeding and pet store industry, please do so ASAP. Apparently there's a deadline of Friday, 1/10 for this to be done. Phone number and other pertinent info can be found here: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=118d5c9f-da66-4f62-bf41-1ad574184881&c=447c3360-465d-11e3-9f5f-d4ae528ec60a&ch=46394cb0-465d-11e3-9f8b-d4ae528ec60a If you're not a NY resident but know anyone who is, please pass this info on and urge them to make the call. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The NY bill has been signed! http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/010913-pet-dealers-in-nys Thanks for all who called and/or forwarded to lend your support! roxanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtnfrank Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just curious, but are the fully surrended dogs ones that are past breeding age? Can't help but wonder what criteria were used for choosing what to surrender and what needs to go through the court system..... J. From news release, it would seem that he was able to keep -for now- puppies and dogs that had proper accommodations. The kennel operator released some dog to rescue while other were seize and may be returned to him if he improves conditions (another court date next week I think). Why did they volunteer to release to rescue some of the seized dogs? I don't know but some (purely speculative opinion here) reasons might be: - He realized he can't care for that many dogs, so released some 'out of the goodness of their heart' (could be the ones requiring the most expensive care and/or the less valuable breeders) - He might have to reimburse the SPCA for the care of the seized dogs while under their care and can't afford to get all dogs back or maybe can't afford to upgrade conditions for all dogs so picked the ones he wants to keep - To appease the public, certainly there was a lynch mob mentality on the internet In the mean time, good for the dogs released to rescue. A bit better for those who will have better accommodations. But long term? Might just get back to the same story if he keeps breeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I can't help but wonder if there may also have been a more "practical", if you will, reason. There's another hearing scheduled for 1/21, at which time, if I understand it correctly, he has to prove that he's upgraded so as to demonstrate that the dogs will have adequate shelter. He may know that he can't meet that deadline for all the dogs he currently owns. So this may be a stopgap measure to help him meet the deadline for the dogs he retained ownership of, while he may ultimately hope this all dies down and he'll eventually be able to resume business as usual. And he may be hoping that this will be seen as a gesture of good will on his part and that the court will be more lenient as a result. It's all speculation, of course, as we don't know what's going on in his head and probably never will. As for long term, it's been reported that authorities and/or the SPCA will be monitoring him closely in the future. We can only hope they will. From what I understand, he's older and maybe he is coming to realize that he can't handle it anymore, at least not if the authorities are going to be requiring him to meet minimum standards. Let's just hope he doesn't have any children who'll be wanting to take over the family business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted January 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 From what I read he did realize that he was in over his head and released the 30 dogs to rescue because he can't care for all of them. Apparently many are practically feral and have had little to no socialization with the world and humans. I just hope he doesn't keep some of the 20 or so puppies he has still and then breeds them. Hopefully locals stay on top of the situation in the future. Think of all the money it will cost their SPCA (apparently glen highland farm isn't absorbing the cost for the dogs they took in) to cover man power , housing , food and medical for all those dogs?! Laws that would help prevent these situations benefit everyone. The SPCA is using money that could have gone to save other animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.