Flatcreek border collie breeder shut down...

[GentleLake]

The latest in the news:

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3290274.shtml?cat=300

[GentleLake]

And another article outlining the very poor health status of the 30 dogs removed from Flat Creek: http://www.news10.com/story/24509077/vet-report-released-in-case-of-montgomery-county-kennel-case

 

Scroll down below the comments to read the actual vet report.

[Sue R]

Excuse me but in light of the veterinarian's report, not to mention other observations, how could anyone in the justice system return any of the dogs to the owner or allow the owner to have any dogs? Where is common sense and compassion for the dogs in our legal system?

[Root Beer]

Wow, I read through that report.

 

There really are no words. I don't get how anyone could treat dogs that way. I know it happens, but . . . seriously.

 

Horrific doesn't even begin to describe it.

[NJSwede]

That report was tough to read! The lack of shelter seems to have been just the tip of the iceberg. I hope most of the dogs can be rehabilitated to the point where they can be adopted by families that can give them the love they deserve and that this so called "breeder" get the (harsh) justice they deserve...

[Flamincomet]

I cannot believe, with the reports that have come out on these dogs' condition, that people are STILL defending this man. I just got into a debate with a friend on FB because they are saying the dogs should not have been taken away, that this man should have been educated, and that he should not face any legal repercussions. What?? Where is the compassion and care for these dogs?? They can't care for themselves, and their "owner" failed them miserably. People are even trying to say that the report from Glen Highland Farm is biased and over exaggerated, even that the condition of these dogs was CAUSED by them being seized. What is it about this situation that makes people lose all sense of logic?

 

I didn't see it linked, so here is GHF's report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/201309482/A-Report-on-the-35-Border-Collies-from-Flat-Creek-in-Sprakers-NY#download

[waffles]

I think the argument is based on the guy being a breeder. If this was just a regular person who hoarded 70 dogs in these conditions I doubt so many would support him. I think some feel it is breeders vs rescue and that's why they are saying such negative things about GHF and those who originally protested this place.

 

The guy can't even afford to or be bothered to feed these dogs let alone vet them. Deworming can be done at home too so there is just no excuse for his actions. Plus the fact that he made money off of these dogs and couldn't bother to use some of it for their care shows a total lack of compassion and respect for his dogs. I am glad it seems all of his dogs will eventually be taken away.

[gcv-border]

I found it interesting that one of the news reports referred to Flat Creek as "puppy farm". Hmmm, was that due to a naïve/oblivious junior reporter or was it a Freudian slip?

[waffles]

I actually just finished reading the report and I am very impressed with how in depth it is. Happy to see them talking about breeding, inbreeding, genetics and also about the behavioral needs of these dogs now. They really painted a full picture for authorities on just how bad this place is.

 

I will never understand how people can continue to support places like this. That report should be posted all over border collie rescues and forums so that future puppy buyers without knowledge of breeding will have good information and can make better choices when they go to buy a dog.

[GentleLake]

Ugh. That was painful to read. I quite literally feel nauseated now.

[Flamincomet]

Waffles I agree that is why so many people seem to be supporting him. And I honestly do feel bad the amount if harassment he is experiencing from animal rights extremists, but I can't even talk to these supporters without being called an AR fanatic and a number of other things being assumed about me. They are just completely on the offensive and so devoid of logic right now. This friend claims they know some info from the lawyer helping the breeder that will basically get this guy off the hook, but I just don't see how anything could make what this guy has done ok. Seriously, what does GHF have to gain by lying about these dogs' conditions?

[NJSwede]

Exactly! GHF has nothing to gain from lying about it. From what I've heard, animal rescue organizations are constantly overcrowded and underfunded. Why would they lie to get more dogs and have to take on more cost?

[simba]

Gcv-border. 'Puppy farm' is a synonym for 'puppy mill'. It's more common in Australia, Ireland, and the UK. I had no idea what a puppy mill was when I first heard it.

 

 

If anyone knows the FHOTD (fugly horse of the day) blog, they used to have this all the time. Someone would have 180 horses living off a blade of grass a month between them, and people would rally 'round to talk about how they were all just old, and the farm just 'got away from' the owner who was also being framed by crazy AR fanatics with magic powers.

 

'Why don't you just go feed those horses and shut up instead of talking about it.' sort of stuff: there must be a name for that particular defence. So it's not just dogs.

[Sue R]

I think that anytime you see a name like "____ Border Collie Farm" (or Ranch, or whatever) you can bet they produce too many pups to be producing good pups.

[ncsugrad54]

It makes me absolutely furious that people are still defending this "breeder" even after reading the vet report. it was so sad to read that report. I will say that I was very impressed with how well written the report was. Great job GHF! I wish all the dogs would be seized today. There is no excuse for the breeder. He needs to be punished. He obviously could care less about the dogs.

 

I feel so bad for these dogs

[Root Beer]

Exactly! GHF has nothing to gain from lying about it. From what I've heard, animal rescue organizations are constantly overcrowded and underfunded. Why would they lie to get more dogs and have to take on more cost?

 

And these are not going to be easy placements. Most people who are willing and have the experience to take on dogs with this type of background already have houses full of them.

[Liz P]

I am actually worried that the report can be used against GHF in court. I personally would not have released it. I think press silence other than "we are caring for the dogs" is best until the case is settled.

[rushdoggie]

And I honestly do feel bad the amount if harassment he is experiencing from animal rights extremists, but I can't even talk to these supporters without being called an AR fanatic and a number of other things being assumed about me. They are just completely on the offensive and so devoid of logic right now. This friend claims they know some info from the lawyer helping the breeder that will basically get this guy off the hook, but I just don't see how anything could make what this guy has done ok. Seriously, what does GHF have to gain by lying about these dogs' conditions?

 

 

I was one of those folks who initially was very uncomfortable with the situation and you could have defined me as a "weak supporter" of the owner. My discomfort was based on the viral spread of the word "abuser!" based on some photos from an individual who had some background which was suspect to me. In addition to the trial by public media, it seems this guy and his neighbors were getting physically harassed and threatened, and about half the FB conversations I saw included threats to steal the dogs and commit violence against the owner.

 

Voicing those concerns (elsewhere, not here) got me branded all kinds of bad names and one lady even literally harassed me on FB by sending me all kinds of weird PMs and then telling me that I was stalking her (by reading her PMs?) and that she had called the cops on me. It was teh first time I ever blocked anyone on FB and I did it because her messages were so long and out there I thought she was a little unhinged.

 

I think the public "outing" of this man may have forced the authorities to look harder, but I also understand that it was some people who approached him in person, and were kind and appropriate that got him to really look at his situation.

 

I will freely admit I was wrong about the dogs looking "OK" based on photos, as it seems that thick fur hid some stuff that needed to be treatsed. And I have never agreed that this was a good situation, just that I wasn't sure it was an "abuse" situation. I am very glad that GHF and other folks are helping the dogs, that a vet was involved, etc.

 

That said, I still don't know this man personally, I don't know much about him except he is elderly and has different values than I do about keeping dogs, and that when pressed he agreed to surrender some of the dogs. I don't know if he cared about those dogs or not, or if he has mental illness, or what the details are. I think those decisions are better left to the people who are involved. I also think that its a good idea for him to have legal representation, not because I think he is right but because in any case where there are judgements happening, I think both sides should be equally represented.

 

I work with elderly people every day, and I know sometimes they have a different mindset than I do about animals, and that they can have health issues that affect judgement. I do think its better to be kind and help him make better decisions than to punish him. Some of those dogs might be happy to live with him in better conditions, especially those who might really struggle in a different social setting.

 

Its all very upsetting to me on a lot of levels.

[Flamincomet]

And these are not going to be easy placements. Most people who are willing and have the experience to take on dogs with this type of background already have houses full of them.

 

Yes this. Based on the behavior GHF reported these dogs are exhibiting, it sounds like it's going to take a serious and strict behavioral modification program to get these dogs to where they'd need to be to be adopted into even a pet home. Anything other than a pet home would honestly be a miracle. Supporters of this man are claiming the dogs aren't undersocialized, but are "socialized to the owner." They're saying that their dog would act like this if it was taken away from them. I'm sorry, but that is one dog, this is forty dogs who are all exhibiting extreme fearful behavior to what should be normal occurrences. Lack of socialization is lack of socialization, no matter what you call it.

 

Denise I agree with you on many accounts. I was hesitant to come to any conclusions on this until I heard more about the conditions of the dogs. I do not think this man is a bad or evil man. I think he had good intentions but got in over his head. However, I don't think that should make him exempt from lawful repercussions. Yes it is an unfortunate situation when a good person does something morally bad, but the fact is that he caused pain and suffering for these dogs, and that cannot be dismissed (I'm not saying you are being dismissive, but others I've talked to about this definitely are). I've been accused of being "devoid of human compassion" and an "animal rights fanatic" because I am standing up for the dogs, but really, someone needs to. Wrong is wrong, and the condition of those dogs in inexcusable. Some kind of repercussion needs to happen, whether it's jail time, a fine, or even just close monitoring and a limit on the number of dogs he can own. I don't know him or his health situation, that is for a judge to say, but he can't just get away with this.

[GentleLake]

Supporters of this man are claiming the dogs aren't undersocialized, but are "socialized to the owner."

 

That's pretty much the definition of undersocialized, now, isn't it?

 

 

 

I do not think this man is a bad or evil man. I think he had good intentions but got in over his head.

 

I don't pretend to know what's in anyone else's heart. But people have been trying to get this guy shut down for longer than the 6 years I've known about him. That's a pretty long time to just be in over your head, unless it's with a pretty deliberate set of blinders on.

 

ETA: I kinda have to wonder why most of the dogs are so relatively young? If he's been taking such good care of these dogs -- or if the neglect is just a recent phenomenon -- shouldn't there be more that have lived well into old age?

[Flamincomet]

I'd assume that he has a lot of younger dogs since it was reported he would take dogs he'd bred back if the owners couldn't care for them or didn't want them, but that's just a guess.

 

I had no idea people had been trying to get him shut down for that long.

[mtnfrank]

"socialized to the owner" ???

 

From the GHF report:

This was evident in the seizure process when GHF assisted the SPCA in handling these dogs. We asked the Flat Creek breeder, Herbert Weich, if he could catch the dogs and he said no. He told us that two mature dogs, D41 and D35 would not come to him at all. Weich’s neighbor, who was assisting in the process, asked Weich to get his ‘hook’ pole – the stick with a large metal hook on the end that catches the large metal rings attached to the collars of the dogs (Exhibit 63 & 64). The neighbor explained to GHF founder Lillie Goodrich that he needed someone to shine the flashlight into the dog’s eyes to blind it, so he could hook the ring on the collar and then pull the dog out of the shelter. This particular dog then bit the neighbor as he yanked her out with the ‘hook’ pole.

 

 

As for malice or not... title says it all, we'll see if charges are laid and if he is convicted but if so it would be 'criminal behaviour', which is kind of malicious by definition!

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3290274.shtml

[GentleLake]

Good point, Mtnfrank. If he has to use catch poles, the dogs aren't even socialized to him.

[juliepoudrier]

I know nothing about this guy, but if he's a border collie farm, I don't think he had "good intentions" per se toward the dogs, but that they were a source of profit for him. Caring for them properly would certainly result in a smaller profit.

 

I feel sorry for the "crazy cat lady" type, like, for example, the founder of a rescue in NC who really did have good intentions, kept taking in cats, got in over her head, and ended up being branded a hoarder (which she was, in a way) and the cats were taken from her, and many of them were euthanized (long story on that).

 

Anyway, in the latter example, I can empathize with the woman. She was trying the HELP unwanted animals and got a little crazy on the numbers. In the former case, this fellow was breeding dogs to sell. If the large numbers included dogs he'd take back from owners, that doesn't exonerate him, because it looks like he was just letting them breed too. And if you have those numbers coming back to you in the first place, then perhaps you should rethink your breeding program. Happy buyers of happy, healthy dogs don't return them in droves.

 

J.

[ncsugrad54]

 

 

That said, I still don't know this man personally, I don't know much about him except he is elderly and has different values than I do about keeping dogs, and that when pressed he agreed to surrender some of the dogs. I don't know if he cared about those dogs or not, or if he has mental illness, or what the details are. I think those decisions are better left to the people who are involved.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If he cared about these dogs, they would not be semi-feral, have open wounds, abscesses in their teeth, pieces missing from their noses, raw pads, etc. Should I continue on with the problems found in the vets report? Last I checked someone that remotely even cared about their dogs would not have to catch them with a pole that has a hook on it and use a flashlight to blind them in the eyes . They are obviously not even socialized with him.