Treats on the Internets

In what looks suspiciously like a case of puppy stealing by Waukegan AC in IL, authorities cited a failure on the part of a bulldog breeder to obtain a breeding license as their basis for removing 6 week old puppies from their dam and arresting the breeder.  (Thank you Clarice for the link.)

The North Reading Police Department in MA takes lost pet reports seriously.  And their efforts paid off for one family, big time.  (Thanks Lis.)

News to me:  Vets in the UK aren’t currently allowed to use the title “Doctor” before their names but that may change.

Muscly, half-naked and cuddling pets:  If you didn’t get the 2015 calendar you wanted for Christmas, take a look at this one.  Proceeds benefit the Charleston Animal Society’s fund for injured and abandoned animals.  (Thanks Valerie.)

Girl performs tricks for captive dolphins.  They are clearly interested.  (Thanks Valerie.)

Animals, especially cats, appear several times on this wonderful list of awful book covers.

18 thoughts on “Treats on the Internets

  1. the Waukegan IL incident is a SERIOUS problem – this was an owner who did everything that we as owners, breeders, rehome/ rescue groups (legal, responsible ones, anyway) consider to be the RIGHT way.

    He had ONE littler from ONE dog. He had vet oversight the entire way. The pups had just has their 6-week check up the day before the incident. He had SALE CONTRACTS for the pups -all but a couple were sold on contract already – the new prospective owners had to meet with him FACE TO FACE, got to see the dam and pups, and signed a contract. The pups were still WITH the dam as they were as yet too young to be removed.

    Along comes a ‘prospective’ buyer… still don’t know if she was turned down (unacceptable for one of his pups? Who knows). She reported him to the local AC because he didn’t have a $25 permit, which was required. This is something that you pretty much cannot FIND in the regulations/ laws and requirements of that City – several people went to their site, looked under several different locations (animal control, permits, legal requirements etc etc). Not readily/ easily available information.

    The owner, a young Marine, was ARRESTED in front of his kids on Christmas Eve… all for the want of a $25 dollar permit.

    But, it gets BETTER…

    the local AC and the Police Dept have family members in common… the 6-week old puppies were REMOVED from the home (but not the dam). The retail Re$cue already had new owners lined up drooling over the chance to buy a brand new, healthy (at that time), happy puppy for $600. (After some blowback they dropped their price to $400).

    Now, after a court order to return the pups, they seem to have miraculously vanished. Nowhere to be seen. No one knows where they are, what their health status is (how many other dogs and other animals have these vulnerable pups been exposed to at the ‘rescue’ or in other people’s homes already??)

    So, this was under NO circumstances a “rescue” as some of the more rabid AR followers contend. He was NOT in any way, shape or form a substandard breeder. Yet he is being persecuted for being a (insert anti breeding slur here) – for having ONE litter of pups without a $25 permit.
    Seems that there is NO recourse for this either – when you finally DO find the animal regs, turns out that if you don’t have the permit the ‘punishment’ is a fine. No arrest, no theft-under-color-of-law of your dogs. And no recourse for the owners – apparently you cannot pay a fine, get a permit.

    How is THIS good for dogs, for RESPONSIBLE breeding, for the future of pets.

    Stand up
    Step up
    Speak up

    Will YOUR pets be next?

  2. Here’s the thing though, I looked up the Waukegan law. He broke it, and the police and AC acted as directed by the law. I don’t AGREE with it, but they followed the law and he didn’t. You don’t fix laws by breaking them, you fix laws by going through the channels. And if you’re going to take a deliberate step such as breeding its YOUR responsibility to know your local laws on the subject.

    Now the rest of it…..I’d missed the updates that the court ordered the pups returned and they weren’t. THAT does sound like yet another case of a rescue seeing adoptable dogs and deciding that they “are the be-all-end-all of the dog world and breeders suck” and therefor the rescue doesn’t care about the law cause DOGS!!!”. Which has been happening WAY TO OFTEN lately.

    I will say, that the Waukegan law is one of the mildest I’ve seen when it comes to regulating breeders. Though it makes no distinction between TYPES of breeders the requirements of the law are very modest and not extreme at all. A $25 fee is nothing really, especially if you’re already doing the breeding correctly a $25 fee is minimal. But there REALLY needs to be a way for someone to fulfill the requirements of the law and be issued a permit in cases like this. Because we ARE talking living breathing animals, and taking them out of a perfectly good home over a technicality is NOT good for them, especially when they’re that young…..

    1. The police and the AC did not act as directed by law. If they had done so a fine would have been charged.

      The AC, very much beyond what was legally prescribed and without the steps required under their own law, confiscated puppies.

  3. The woman who started the exchange the police officer took over is part of the “rescue” (to me, this is NOT what a rescue really is) that got the puppies.

    This “rescue” also hadn’t even applied for their non profit status before they got these puppies, although they claimed they already had it. They were also only permitted per their licence to have no more than ten dogs at a time. Their perfinder page showed more than ten dogs *before* they got these puppies. Where is their raid for failure to follow licensing laws.

    I found the licensing law cited in this case. It says it isn’t required for litters that fall under “normal consideration”. Will someone please tell me what in the hell “normal consideration” is?! If having one litter a year from the one and only dog you own isn’t, I cannot think of a single litter that would fall under that.

    Let’s say he was in violation. Do you know what it calls for when people don’t get their licence? A $200 fine. Period. Sure as hell no arrests or confiscation of the puppies. And why in the hell is to line up forever homes at the age of six weeks (yet keep them with their mother until they are old enough to leave) yet rip them away from their mother to this “rescue” who now claims they disappeared. How does one “loose” a litter of puppies? You don’t. You steal them. Oh, and let’s not forget the owner still has the mother and zero moves were ever tried to remove her. Why? Because they had ZERO legal right to do any of this!

    I’m sorry. But NOTHING in this case is “rescue”. This is a group of theves using the “rescue” name to justify their thefts. Do NOT drag real rescues down by even hinting that any of this is slightly related to what they do.

    1. I have a screenshot of this ‘rescue’ operator telling others on facebook that she bought pups out of parking lots and then resold them through her ‘rescue’ as that way she would ensure a better home. She is not 501C3. This is retail rescue at its finest.

  4. Can’t see the girl performing tricks for dolphins – content not available.

    Huh. British vets aren’t “Doctor”s? They…did call him “Mister” Herriot in the books, didn’t they?

    The puppy thing is clearly madness. Absolute madness. If other people signed contracts, I hope they sue the city. Instead of a massive sting operation and seizure of property, how about a fine for violation? How about a warning? How about ANYTHING reasonable? And now the puppies are who knows where…

    Awful book covers are awful.

  5. Back in 2001 this city passed new dog limits. One dog for half an acre of land or less. Two for one acre, and three dogs for an acre and a half. If you had more than an acre and a half, no limits. There was no grandfather clause, so if you had more than the new code allowed, they were taken away. The only way to get them back was to take the city to court, and even then it was required to pay for the impound fees and still the owner still had to rehome any over the limit.

    This new licence for breeders appears to be new, less than a year old. And there is question as to if the city posts it three times before it came into effect as required by IL law. If they didn’t it is invalid. As it is, it is not under kennel or animal codes when you look at the government website. So it is very understandable for someone not to know about it.

    All but one of the puppies was sold with a contract. This officer posed to buy the last one. She also pretty much strong armed the owner into meeting at his house. Had that not happend, the puppies would be with the owner still. Fourth admindment violation anyone?

  6. Re Waukegon … The license fee was $25. He violated THAT law.. Since when do people get arrested and their property confiscated for failing to buy a license? Especially since the law has no provision for being informed of the violation and correcting it. There was NO evidence that pups or mom were abused (which is surely the reason for the impoundment ordinance). The cop (who had posed as the buyer) took ONLY the pups…now why would that be? The supporters of the rescue are accusing the breeder of selling 6 week puppies… Kind of ignoring that the cop took 6 week puppies away from their home, which can surely endanger them. A friend of the family posted on the FB support page that the puppies are at a DIFFERENT rescue; there were also hints that the (in light of the possible collusion between the cop and the rescue and the appalling violations of due process), the city will drop charges and fines and return the puppies early next week. FB page is All About that Bass..

  7. Oh yes, the puppies *are* going to suffer life long damages because of this. 6-8 weeks is when most of social development happens. And it is learned from the mother, not so much the litter mates. These puppies will likely be very hard to train.

    And let’s not forget about their poor little immune systems. They are loosing the immunity they got from their mother just in time to be moved around several times a week and exposed to God knows what.

    And the poor mother… Dogs grieve. They grieve so much. She is likely very traumatized by this. The kind of truma dogs never quite get over.

    1. That is an amazing story – they MUST stay together. Glad they are at UPAWS where they will be well cared for. Please let us know when they go home.

  8. I have absolutely no issue with ethical breeders. Those that make sure the pups who do not meet the high standards are S\N as part of the sale.
    I do have a problem with breeders- ethical or not who do not pay taxes on their income and also dump their rejects on taxpayer AC.
    That said-since there is money to be made and the IRS seems reluctant to go after breeders. I think I will leave rescue and start breeding so I can replenish the tens of thousands$$$$ I have pulled from my retirement to rescue said breeders rejects.

  9. Hot of the presses (Facebook, actually): The Waukegan bulldog puppies are home where they belong! Everyone who cares about dogs needs to follow this case, from dog owners to private rescue groups. There is more to this story, but most of the information has been kept quiet until the puppies were safe. There will be some legal consequences for the city of Waukegan and the private rescue group whose atrocious behavior caused this in the first place, but the City is where the blame will land, because it was their own police Lt. who was responsible. We’ll see what happens now, but at least we know that the puppies are safe now, and the rescue group didn’t “disappear” them – which is what many people feared. More later.

  10. Update on the Waukegan bulldog puppies:

    This looks like it will be a pivotal case in this completely unnecessary and destructive war on dog breeders – what good do people think will come from destroying ALL dog breeders, what kind of improvement in animal welfare would occur? The city almost instantly realized that they had a law in place that was unconstitutional, that it lacked any provisions for due process. The city reportedly hunkered down immediately to rectify the injustice. The way this law was put in place will also be investigated. The original article that quoted the police officer’s bragging about how she pulled off this “sting” shocked a lot of people – this time the shock spread into the general public, who were outraged. The citizens of Waukegan were extremely kind to the Bass family, it was only a few radical extreme rescue fanatics who defended the police officer or the rescue group, and stalked and harassed the family – at their home and on social media. The rescue group involved was headquartered in Joliet, 2 hours away. Why? I live only an hour away from Waukegan, this made me quite anxious. People won’t forget about this – Waukegan will be looking at all of their animal codes.

Leave a Reply