They Came for the Bassets

August 6, 2009 at 1:26 am 31 comments

These days the media seems to be filled with stories of dogs seized from puppy mills, dog fighting operations, animal hoarders and abusive homes.  Millions of average pet owners across America read these stories with a mixture of outrage against the animal abusers and pity for the abused animals. Relieved that the unfortunate animals were saved from a terrible fate, they move on to the next story, never considering that there might be more to the story than meets the eye…

I doubt that any of us thinks that we’re an animal abuser.  While ideas on owning and raising dogs are at least as wide-ranging (and deeply emotionally driven) as those on rearing children, most of us feel that our ideas fall well within the mainstream and that we have little to fear from animal rights legislation. But if we remain content to sit back – silent and uninformed – will we find that our dogs are next in line to be seized?


The idea is not as far-fetched as you may think.  Today, Never Yet Melted (go and read it all!) reports that:

The sort of people who go in for basseting are typically well-educated, upper middle-class animal lovers of a preparatory school sort of background. In other words, absolutely the last sort of people imaginable as dog abusers or law breakers.

But neither gentility nor middle-aged respectability was sufficient to protect the Murder Hollow’s master Wendy Willard from a full scale raid by Philadelphia police, nor did it prevent 13 hounds from being taken from their kennels and turned over to a private animal rights organization hostile to hunting.

At night, and without warning the SPCA of Pennsylvania showed up at raided Wendy Willard’s kennel and seized the dogs under the aegis of a newly passed law that allows no more than twelve animals to be kept on any property in Philadelphia County (note if they had just given her a chance it appears that Willard may have been able to get a waiverthat would allow her to keep her dogs).  Not only were the animals turned over to (i.e. given away to) a private entity – some of the hounds seized were reportedly the property of another person and were only being kept at Murder Hollow temporarily.  Apparently the jack-booted AR fanatics of the PSPCA didn’t give Willard a chance to explain that.

The dog seized have now been spread out among several local shelters and rescue groups (in other kinds of cases – do the police make a habit of giving seized property away?). Neither the dogs’ owners or other area basset pack owners have been able to get any information on the dogs’ location or welfare.

It may be a natural reaction to feel smugly self-rightous when we hear stories about dogs seized from those kinds of  people (i.e. the ones whose practices we don’t happen to agree with) but it’s time to wake up and smell the dog poop.  If a yuppie suburban basset fancier with no criminal record whatsoever isn’t safe from having her beloved dogs seized without notice – none of us is. 

The goal of many of these raids – especially those featured prominently in the media – have nothing to do with animal welfare.  I’m willing to bet dollars to dog toys that the hounds of Murder Hollow were healthier and happier than most over-fed, under-exercised suburban pets.  The goal is the kind of publicity that fills the coffers of ‘humane’ groups who lobby for anti-pet legislation and don’t operate shelters.  And the long term the goal is animal rights – and the end of all pet breeding and ownership.

It’s time. Time to take lobbying power away from the animal rights extremists who want to chip away at pet ownership until it’s gone.  Time to tell our legislators and representative that animal seizures must be conducted in ways that preserve our rights – not as publicity events.  That protecting the animals seized includes considering the possibility that they might be returned to the home they were taken from – and that, as with other seized property, this consideration needs to be given precedence.  (I don’t understand why these kinds of seizures aren’t prohibited under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment – perhaps someone out there can educate me?)

UPDATE: Here’s Walt Hutchens post re this from Pet-Law. (Walt says all his posts can be cross-posted.)

Ms. Willard was raided by the PSPCA and police due to a first time noise complaint, and told that unless she released 11 of her 23 hounds to them they would seize them all, under a new 12-dog-limit city ordinance.

As my friend Shirly posted over at YesBiscuit:

I have no way of knowing the full facts of the case or whether the post making the rounds is accurate. But to my mind, even if we totally discount it as fiction, the scenario is at least plausible which is what concerns me most.

Exactly. I’m a huge fan of respecting the law.  But even if Ms. Willard was not in compliance with zoning regs, didn’t have a kennel license – or even if she had a filty, nasty, disgusting kennel – she did not deserve to have her dogs, in effect, stolen from her.  The right thing to do, if this was indeed a first time complaint – was to cite her and give her a reasonable time period to come into compliance with the law.
This is happening more and more and it scares the crap out of me.  There but for the grace of God…


See new blog posts at Terrierman’s Daily Dose; Stephen Bodio’s Querencia; Never Yet Melted, and YesBiscuit and the news story published by The Philadelphia Daily News – and make up your own mind.

Entry filed under: dogs. Tags: , , , , , .

Let’s Treat Our Dogs Like Children There But for the Grace of Dog…

31 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Twitted by JodiHeth  |  August 6, 2009 at 5:37 am

    […] This post was Twitted by JodiHeth […]

  • 2. YesBiscuit!  |  August 6, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    This is why I can’t understand anyone supporting these “puppy mill laws” which are based on *numbers*. Number of dogs does not correlate to quality of care in most cases. And the more that groups like HSUS continue to dupe lawmakers and uneducated dog owners into thinking that numbers is the name of the game, the more we suffer as Americans. Eventually, no dog owner will be safe from warrantless search and seizure. But maybe I’m just wacky.

  • 3. PBurns  |  August 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    I would go slowly with this story, as the facts are not fully presented.

    For starters, I find the notion that class (and I suppose race) are supposed to shield folks from the law rather bizarre. That is implied on the Never Yet Melted post.

    The law in Philadelphia (this is not a rural area) is that you have to get a license to have more than 12 dogs.

    But this woman apparently did not care enough about her dogs to get that license. What??? And it’s not like she wasn’t warned, right?

    And it’s not like she was close to the limit was she?

    You ever hung out with Bassett Hounds? They can be pretty noisy! And 23 of them? In Philadelphia?

    There are zoning laws for a reason. Surely we all understand this? I love a circus and pork sausages, but I do not want a circus and a slaughter house next door to me. There are time, place and manner laws for everything, and more than 12 dogs requiring a kennel license in Philadelphia does not strike me as the jack-boot of the state.

    As for the reason there are zoning laws, it is because what you do on your property can be a TAKING from your neighbor. If your neighbor, for example, has 23 Bassett hounds barking all the time, that lowers your property’s value a LOT (hundreds of thousands of dollars), same as if he or she had a junkyard on their property or a strip club. There are places for strip clubs, junk yards and large kennels with 23 barking dogs, but those places are NOT in a residential neightborhood. For the recordm, the legal concept of “takings” is firmly entrenched in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    I would certainly get more information before I started clanging the civil liberties bell. It took more than 250 years for our Founding Fathers to come up with the Bill of Rights. Today we have people claiming fat people’s rights, grandparents rights, smoking rights, the right to be be free of second-hand smoke, the right to do drugs, the right to drug treatment, etc. At some point we need to talk about RESPONSIBILITIES and from what I can see, the owner of these Bassetts did not live up to her responsibilty to these dogs — which included getting a license if she was going to keep more than 12 iof them. The FAIL here is of the owner.


  • 4. SmartDogs  |  August 6, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Here’s the thing Pat. I’m sure Murder Hollow was in violation of the zoning code and Ms. Willard’s neighbor obviously wasn’t happy with her. But — why were the dogs taken from her – and given away to others – without giving her any warning or even waiting to go through the steps to find her guilty?

    When my brother in law got each of his three DUI’s – the police didn’t take his car away from him (though it might have been safer for him and other residents of the small town he lives in if they did). When my neighbor installed an illegal wood fired boiler the zoning department didn’t disconnect and remove it from his property without warning, they sent him a letter informing him that he had 30 days to come into compliance with the law. When a friend put up a new barn w/o getting a building permit – the building department didn’t come out without warning, demolish his barn and haul the wood way – they tagged the building and made him quit using it until he paid fines and demonstrated that it was built to code.

    So — why is it okay to take living, breathing animals away without giving their owner some chance to come into compliance with the law?

    A rescue group I do volunteer work with has spent the last several months raising funds, doing temperament assessments and caring for 200-300 dogs seized from an animal hoarder. The dogs were taken from terrible circumstances. For their safety, they needed to be removed immediately. But they weren’t sold and they weren’t given to rescue groups to adopt out. They were cared for and held as evidence until the case was settled. That is how these kinds of cases must be handled.

    Do you want to live in a society where a disgruntled neighbor can call authorities – or even just local humane groups – make unfounded charges and have your animals seized and sold without notice? What if someone new moves in next door to you who finds terrier work repulsive? Someone who decides what you do is cruel and abusive and thinks that you need to be stopped at any cost? That person could just wait until one of your dogs gets injured – then turn you in as an animal abuser. The ‘humane officer’ (who is not required to follow the same rules of search, seizure and evidence that a police officer does) can show up and take your dog without prior notice. And he can euthanize her or adopt her out before you even get assigned a court date.

    I’m all for responsible behavior and obeying laws – I just want to see it on both sides of the seizure issue.

  • 5. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    I didn’t think takings applied to one neighbor taking from another. I thought it had to do with government taking. Not a lawyer, obviously!

  • 6. bealsie2  |  August 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Is there any hard information on this? All I have been able to find so far is blog posts based on rumor and forwarded emails. I checked the local newspapers and there do not appear to be any reports. Since I am not in PA I doubt that anyone official cares about my opinion, but I was going to write to my congressional representatives and ask when PA seceded from the union and renounced the bill of rights. I don’t want to write that letter based only on rumor, though.

  • 7. carol sandusky  |  August 6, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Can someone please respond to be with how I can confirm that this happened? If how this came about is true, this is outrageous. I understand thee was an ordinance. But taking someones property and then not being able to find out where that property went? and then to top is off, supposedly some of those dogs were not hers?
    I would really like to start a letter writing campaign, but need to confirm that the facts are as written….if anyone can confirm, please email me at

  • 8. YesBiscuit!  |  August 6, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    PSPCA has posted about the seizure:

  • 9. retrieverman  |  August 6, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Let’s just say, she violated the law. I’m okay with her getting heck of a fine over this.

    I’m not okay with destroying the pack. That’s what I mean when I say this was an example of the “jackboot state.”

    I’m no libertarian, but sometimes well-intentioned people come up with very inappropriate responses to problems.

    The way to control hoarding is not through limiting the number of dogs, but through actually a well-funded human services department. We need more social workers.

  • 10. PBurns  |  August 6, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Let’s review what we know:

    1. The owner was contacted by the authorities and she ignored the law. In short, the person who owned the dogs did NOT live up to her responsibility to the dogs. The dogs needed her to answer. She let them down.

    2. The house where this was occuring is in some state of disrepair as we know from the sales notice that says it needs a lot of work. Hmmm. Could the Kennels be in tip-top shape? We do not know, but a glint of suspicion is raised. See #1, above.

    3. The Philadelphia 12-dog limit is not new. In fact, it is more than 20 years old.

    4. The owner gave up the dogs on her own to avoid being charged for negligence. The PSPCA is working with the owner so she can keep the dogs she has and stay within the law. They are giving her time to set things right. Setting things right means giving the dogs veterinary attention as well as cleaning up and giving them proper housing.

    5. The dogs taken from this person are safe in foster care with an independent, partner organization. They have not been given away or sold — they are waiting for someone who is RESPONSIBLE to do right by them.

    BOTTOM LINE: The Philadelphia SPCA did everything right, the owner of these dogs did nothing right, and the fate of the dogs is being improved because the Philadelphia SPCA stepped in.
    If this is the “smoking gun” case folks have for AR fascism, I suggest folks look around a little harder. This is NOT it.

    Nice work PSPCA.


  • 11. Carrie in Texas  |  August 6, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    I sent the PSPCA an email today asking them about Strong Arm Tactics, Poor Stewardship, and Not being a Good Neighbor. If you have ever worked in cleaning a kennel, you quickly realize that 1 day’s accumulation of dog poop constitute’s unsanitary conditions.

    To show up at NIGHT, with 2 police cars and force her to pick and choose which hounds to “relinquish custody” or they would confiscate ALL the hounds is a veritable strong arm tactic. The Spin Doctor (e.g. Public Relations person) can clean up the SPCA’s mess with out us even getting to hear Ms. Wendy Williard side of the story. In my humble opinion, the PSPCA’s version of the story is “sanitized offal.”

    Ms. Williard, it is certain, does not have the financial means of the SPCA, ergo, THE LAW is not on her side.

  • 12. bestuvall  |  August 6, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    Always have an extt strategy. It looks like she refused entry once. If that happened to me I would be pretty sure someone would be NOT knocking on my door but entering with a warrant. Have your car packed at all times for just this sort of “problem”. Crates, food and water.. and a full tank of gas. I would venture to guess that getting 23 Bassets into a van would be difficult but not impossible.
    This is a case where the punishment far exceeds the crime of “too many dogs” or even “noisy dogs” especailly siince it also appears this was a first time violation.
    Although the peson lives in the “city” that does not always mean she does not have a large property. Plenty of people live “in town” where I live and still have 5 acres or more. Perhaps this was the case here as well. but no matter, to me the punishment of the woman having to make the “Sophie’s Choice’ of which dogs to “turn over” would be excruciating.and really enough to make a person have a nervous breakdown. i can imagine she will have many sleepless nights wondering where her dogs are and how they are being cared for.. I feel for her.

  • 13. bestuvall  |  August 7, 2009 at 12:22 am

    Looking at the “press release” for the PSPCA it boggles my mind that they are so cavalier about her giving up her dogs.. Imagine that you are forced at night surrounded by the police and you are being threatened wiht the taking of ALL of your animals.. her is what the PSPCA say happened
    “In lieu of charges, Pennsylvania SPCA agents worked with the owner to reduce the number of dogs on the premises ”
    In other words.. give us some of your dogs NOW and we won’t take them all and charge you with .. what ever they threatened her with.. in otherr words.. they told her.. give us your dogs or else. Not muchof a choice.
    and talk about a “spin”..
    Here is how they THANK the “community”:

    “The Pennsylvania SPCA is encouraged by her efforts in providing and maintaining a more sanitary setting as well as veterinary care for the dogs that remain.
    The dogs are safe in foster care with an independent, partner organization.

    We appreciate the outpouring of support for these dogs from the Bassett community.”

    I think they misread the outpouring of support> if they really cared the dogs would be in the hands of Basset rescue where the organization would be picking up the tab while the case was decided. My bet is that the “vet and board” bill will be astronomical and that this woman will not be able to pay even if she could get the dogs back.. which she won’t .. mark my words.. this kind of case could easily turn into a suicide or other tragic end… I hope it won;t be imagine if this were YOU.

  • 14. Pai  |  August 7, 2009 at 5:27 am

    I hope they have the decency to release the dogs that didn’t actually belong to her back to their owners.

  • 15. Dorene  |  August 7, 2009 at 10:16 am

    I live in the next County over from Philly and this is the first I’ve heard of this. Not a peep in the local media. I’ll keep looking.

  • 16. H. Houlahan  |  August 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    I’m with Patrick on this one.

    I also noted the black helicopter field marks in the original blog, which tend to accompany a generous stretching of the facts and various sins of omission.

    The authorities came at night because that’s when they got the warrant, after the owner refused them entry during the day. It would have been negligent of them to wait until the next day, and possibly not within the bounds of the warrant.

    I, too, want to know “Where are the dogs?” and what their legal status is — who owns them? Did Ms. Willard sign over ownership to the PSPCA? Did she own all the dogs she signed over? If it is not the case that she owned the dogs she relinquished, then the dogs’ owners have an absolute right to have them back, intact — but there would be no way for the enforcement officers who seized the dogs to know this unless Ms. Willard told them.

    Having been recently accused — including on the Pet Law list — of being a jackbooted thug myself, I am rather sensitized to the credulity and potential for hysteria of a certain subset of “the dog fancy.”

    ‘Cuz it’s always good practice to use a ranting, frothing website run by a convicted felon and habitual fraud (easily googlable) with an ax to grind as your primary source for information. It must be true, the website has “news” right in its title!

  • 17. retrieverman  |  August 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Yes, she broke zoning laws. And as Mr. Bumble said “The law is an ass.” I do think she was very stupid for thinking that she could keep that many dogs, when the city has that sort of law established.

    Yes, Philadelphia isn’t an ideal place for packs of hounds. In fact, I can’t think of a worse place. I wonder where she can go rabbitting in the city.

    I’m fine with her being fined. I’m not okay with breaking up one of the few working basset (English basset) packs in the country.

  • 18. retrieverman  |  August 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Oh, btw, I agree that the original post comes from a blog where the black helicopter motif is a bit disturbing.

  • […] keep a pack of working bassets in a major city? 2009 August 7 by retrieverman As per this post, which seems to have everyone in an uproar, I have only one […]

  • 20. bestuvall  |  August 7, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Anyone know how much land this person owns. Some seem to think that because her address is Philadelphia that she must live in a high rise or on a small lot in the “city”.. funny thing.. some cities actually have large properties within their borders. there is no moat around Philadelphia.. no city line where the houses go from spread out to tightly squeezed together in one block.
    I agree with retreiverman.. a fine would be appropriate.. and a reasonable amount of time to place the “excess” animals in homes where they could be followed by the original owner. Those that do not belong to her should be returned to the original owners without delay.
    There is a solution to this without all of the drama and hype. One that would benefit both the person involved and the pets themselves. And certainly one that would not make the AC look like the “bad guys” to many. fine her, give her time to come into compliance and forget about it. But seizing the pets and taking them to an “unknown location” is wrong. Pets are property. If your car is towed the police don’t refuse to tell you where your car is.a and when you pay to get it back.. they have to return it with all of its parts.. they can’t give it back without the wheels.. or hood…even if you go to jail your personal property has to be accounted for and returned to you when you get out. ALL of it…Let’s hope that justice is done in this case.

  • 21. ana poe  |  August 8, 2009 at 5:46 am

    What is that phrase, the German phrase, that encompasses the feeling you get when one person (or group of people) experiences defeat and you happen to enjoy it…

    I’m not exactly that callous, but coming from the “pit bull world” I’m almost happy that another group of people experiences the same outrage that we experience every time a pit bust happens. For instance, who cares if the owner is in the right or in the wrong, historically the dogs (if they’re pit bulls) get put down *while* they’re evidence. No chance for justice to play itself out, no understanding that the dogs are innocent bystanders. They disappear. The dogs are never given a chance, and they never did anything wrong. It’s very easy to overlook things when your breed of choice is not the one targeted, but you have to realize that you could easily be next.

    I am so happy that recent change in rhetoric is leaning toward giving custody dogs a chance to live, but there is still a long ways to go. Yet stuff like this still goes on.

    AC is not the bad guy. They just do what they are told. And what they are told is a direct influence of “us”, so let’s tell them what’s right and what’s wrong.

  • 22. YesBiscuit!  |  August 8, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    FYI – There have been a couple updates added to the post referenced at Never Yet Melted.

  • 23. retrieverman  |  August 8, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Well, it’s good to see the hunt people stepping up to the plate.

    I wonder when this is going to be on Animal Cops Philadelphia.

    Yes, I just found out this show existed maybe two weeks ago.

  • 24. EmilyS  |  August 8, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    Ana Poe, the word you’re looking for is “schaudenfreude”

  • 25. mittelspitz  |  August 9, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Ana Poe – a better link for schaudenfreude 😛

  • 26. Denise  |  August 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Here is another side of the story from Wendy herself: Please cross post…….

    First a huge thank you for all your words of support and everything that you have done! I had my third visit today from the PSPCA and again threats of multiple citations if I didn’t cooperate with these lovely folks. I can fill you in the details, but more important fish to fry (sorry, Jeep).

    I have been deluged by phone calls and e-mails from all over the country, from a lawyer in GA (” forget the SPCA, go directly to the State Attorney General”) to the manager of a shelter in IL (“can’t believe.. and horrified”). The blogs seem to have been in over drive.

    Good news is we got a very sympathetic article in one of the two major papers today. A reporter has also called from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as the AKC and the Chronicle of the Horse (Molly Sorgi? 804-994-2349). My problem is that if I respond personally, the SPCA has made it clear that I must “cooperate or multiple citations will be issued and there would be no PA Kennel License”.

    So here is my response to the PSPCA website (, first article about the Murder Hollow Bassets. I cannot respond to anyone in the media or even the PSPCA, but I can let you know. Whatever you chose to do with my information, oh well.

    1. Only one dog barking complaint from unknown neighbor, no other complaints. That neighbor has yet to come forth, although all, I mean all have expressed dismay in writing. Never in the 22 years of having a kennel here has anyone come to me to complain in person, writing, or e-mail.

    2. The websites indicated that the SPCA left requests to be contacted. The ‘Humane Law Officer’ (her term, not mine) left a card in my door with no information, no requests for a call, no warnings or no citations a few days before the raid. Absolutely none. She could have left a note to call, because I get lots of cards from grass cutters to painters. No mention of any 12 dog limit in the city.

    3. Yes, I initially refused entry with a long explanation about abuses due to the new Dog Law. Two Dog Law Officers (from Harrisburg in two trucks), three PSPCA officers (in three trucks, not including the small truck with those tiny multiple pens on the side), and two Police Officers (two police cars) quickly returned with a search warrant.

    4. The PSPCA did NOT work with the owner to reduce the number of dogs. Officer Tara Loller repeatedly, repeatedly threatened to take all the dogs if I did not give her 10. Under extreme duress and far outnumbered, I handed over 10 hounds. Talk about Sophie’s Choice in the dark. Then they found Hansel and demanded one more. I gave them my other house hound, taking off her collar and Invisible Fence collar. All the time crying hysterically and protesting loudly.

    5. When forced to sign release papers for the now 11 hounds, I explained that Betsy Park was the technical owner of three and wrote her name at the bottom of the forms. (Betsy, sending you copies.) Officer Loller assured me that Betsy Park would get first consideration for adoption.

    6. A ‘Warning’ for re-inspection was issued, but no other warning or citation. A copy of the Philadelphia Animals laws (17 pages) included 3 lines which stated “No residential dwelling unit shall keep a total of more than twelve (12) adult dogs or cats combined of which no more than four (4) may be unneutered”, was left in my kennels. These laws were never handed to me before or after the raid, and I was never informed of these laws by my Philadelphia Vet or the Philadelphia Dog Licensing Agency that took my money year after year.

    7. At the first re-inspection, the ‘Humane Law Officer’ was accompanied by an Assistant District Attorney, Barbara Paul. They found the conditions of the hounds (one bitch needed nail trimming, all done by my Vet) and kennels to be satisfactory (some ceiling insulation tiles were more securely fastened). The indentations in the limestone screenings outside the kennel made by random scratching will be filled with more screenings. That should have been accomplished, but the black cloud over the kennel dropped 6+” of rain on Sunday. Tons of stone are being dumped on the lane first.

    8. The DA left her card and asked to be phoned with questions. I e-mailed her a question about the definition of “residential dwelling unit”. Is the barn a separate unit? As it was constructed and only used by hounds, does that make the barn a residential unit? She replied that she could not give me that information because we may be in “adversarial positions” and directed me to the Philadelphia Bar Lawyer Referrals.

    9. To date, no one has been told of the location of the seized hounds and no calls have been returned from Officer Ray Little, the PSPCA Adoption Agent. A neighboring Vet who has offered free health care for the life of the adoptees and wants Khaki has not heard from them. David Gottier who wants the two litter mates of his hounds and Sandy McKenna who wants the one year old fuzzy bitch have been stone walled. Dr. Roy Feldman and Pat Renner from my Hunt have not heard back. But there is an urgent message on the PSPCA website asking for foster homes and adoptions, because they have no room in the shelter.

    Again, I am asking you to be in the position of the messenger, but feel free to ask me any questions. Thank you SO much.


    Julian Prager

  • 27. PBurns  |  August 10, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    So, are you going to correct the original post?

    I think if you do not, you let it stand as a LIE.

    After all, this woman was clearly notified by the SPCA (twice) prior to the third visit.

    In addition, the limit on the number of dogs was NOT a new law.

    Those are facts.

    So too is the fact that her kennel was in disrepair. There is no denying that.

    Falling ceiling tiles? Hmmm. Due to what? The only time that I know of ceiling tiles coming off is when a roofing is leaking.

    The SPCA says the dogs were infested, lying in filth, and needed veterinary attention. They have pictures. Anyone want to bet on who is telling a full and complete story here? My money is not with the woman who would not allow a kennel inspection, who would not pay to put her extra dogs in private boarding kennels, and who voluntarily relenquieshed 13 dogs (three of which apparently were not her own).

    However it goes, however, I think the original post now needs correction. There are undisputed FACTS at this point, and they are NOT supported by the original post. Three days ago this post was simply factually wrong. Leaving it standing without change, however, is to contribute to a lie.

    As I said three days ago, there is benefit to going slow on this story. Now we know the essential frame as presented by David Zincavage over at “Never Yet Melted” was wrong on every key verifiable point.


  • 28. steve's wife  |  August 10, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    If indeed the kennel and dogs were filhty as alleged, why didn’t the authorities take ALL the dogs, why leave some behind in the alleged filth…I do not know all the facts but it seems to be how our goovermint is working these days to invade private citizens like they were terrorists instead of dealing with it rationally…a few years ago the USDA raided a wild boar hunting preserve…the USDA went in gestapo style at 5 am, took the husband to jail and held the wife under terroristic house arrest and started killing the animals without testing, dragging bloody bodies and were there for months, leaving a big mess …even the pet pigs were killed all over a disease that was only suspected, no testing was done onsite.
    go to and look up the henshaw incident

  • 29. puppy pit bulls  |  September 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    As you read this, please keep in mind that even if you are not big on pit bulls, breed specific legislation is a danger to all dogs. There have been bans proposed in other areas against shepherds, labs, even pugs! Not to mention that fact the if all a dog has to do is* look* like a pit bull, many non- pits will be euthanized as well. Volunteering at the Ashtabula APL I see first hand how any dog with a wide head and a big smile is thought to be a pit, even by the dog warden.

  • 30. PBurns  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    We now know that almost everything in this post was wrong and was wrong from the beginning.

    See >>

    I suggested going slow at the very beginning because EVERYTHING sais in this tale, right from the beginning, was suspect.

    Maybe next time, folks will try to get the facts first ….


  • 31. Maui used cars  |  November 9, 2012 at 12:00 am

    I totally support the views expressed by you against the animal abusers. Actually we are outraged only for a few moments on hearing about animal abuse and then turn a deaf year to it. This thing needs to be shunned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Because A Dog’s Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste


Copyright notice

All original content on this Web site is copyright © on the date of publication by this author. All rights reserved except, of course, that others may quote from original content under the 'Fair Use' provisions of US copyright law.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 284 other subscribers

RSS New Stuff in our Library

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Top Clicks

  • None
Top Dog Blog
Featured in Alltop


Add to Technorati Favorites
Dog Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
blogarama - the blog directory
Blog Directory
Blog Directory & Search engine
August 2009

%d bloggers like this: