OES part of ASPCA 'Shelter' raid
I just received my ASPCA newsletter and there is a story about a 'Shelter'  that was raided and 300+ dogs rescued. The pictures are horrendous and as I scrolled down, there was a photo of a beautiful, very frightened OES. The place that was raided is in Cazenovia, Wisconsin.
Here's the link to the story: http://www2.aspca.org/site/MessageViewe ... id=60444.0 I don't know if there are any OES rescues near that area but I just wanted to get this out there - Hopefully there are. |
|
|
OMG my heeart just broke! 
How sad and scard that baby looks. |
| Wisconsin OES Rescue is aware of the situation.
The manager of the facility that was raided was contracted to serve as the Richland County Shelter. Apparently one that didn't believe in working with breed rescues. We need to wait and see how neighboring Dane County Humane Society and local authorities decide to handle the situation, but we'll help if needed. DCHS is a large, well-funded shelter, and I have faith that they have the situation as it stands today under control. I'll keep you posted. Kristine |
| Thank you, Kristine. I'm very relieved that OES Rescue is aware of it.
So many dogs in that nightmare...............Where was the oversight? |
Lokis Mom wrote: Thank you, Kristine. I'm very relieved that OES Rescue is aware of it.
So many dogs in that nightmare...............Where was the oversight? Lynn (hi, by the way!!  ) - you know how these situations are - it's hard to say till all of the details come out.
Authorities have been there before and found nothing of great concern and even with what they found this time it was still better than what they feared, apparently. It's in the best interest of organizations like the ASPCA, HSUS and so on to show these raids in the worst possible light to further their fundraising efforts, so I'm taking a wait and see approach to see what local authorities have to say about it before I assume the absolute worst. Certainly the OES depicted are in desperate need of a shave down and a bath. But we had three OES surrendered from a private person not long ago who if anything looked worse, and they were otherwise well cared for. You and I both know OES are a disaster in a large kennel setting like that one unless you keep them buzzed or basically have a person assigned to just them 
There was video from last year and a kennel run full of youngish OES from the looks of it whom didn't look bad, frankly, and in general bedding was clean and so on. Why, if it's the same group of dogs, breed rescues were not contacted and dogs moved out of there (not just OES)...? I can't say. 
I guess we'll just have to see how it unfolds. Kristine |
| How horrible, it is so sad to see that poor sheepie and all the others |
| You're right, Kristine - I don't understand the reluctance of shelters to work with breed rescue groups either. It seems like a common sense approach to me, since there are millions of mixed breed dogs in need of help and space is limited. Breed specific rescues will make sure that their dogs are placed with people who are the best match for that breed, and there's more space for more dogs in the shelter........................Sounds like a win-win to me.
Please keep us posted, and thanks again.  |
| Having gotten a purebred oes rescue from a shelter I think they do a fine job. Sometime rescues iarehard to work with - both from the shelter and the prospective owners point of view - just saying its something to think about. |
kerry wrote: Having gotten a purebred oes rescue from a shelter I think they do a fine job. Sometime rescues iarehard to work with - both from the shelter and the prospective owners point of view - just saying its something to think about.
Agreed. They tend to do a nice job around here and generally only contact us if there are health, age of temperament concerns. There's a shortage of purebred dogs for adoption, so most shelters like to place them themselves, and some charge a premium for purebreds. The shelter in question, however, has apparently had these since last summer at least. They were never on petfinder or promoted for adoption. Nor did they seek help from breed rescue. That's just pointless. Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: to place them themselves, and some charge a premium for purebreds. Yep and it as still less than the rescue fee - since they also take so many really hard to place dogs, the higher fee makes some sense. The shelter in question, however, has apparently had these since last summer at least. They were never on petfinder or promoted for adoption. Nor did they seek help from breed rescue. That's just pointless. ABSOLUTELY!! If I could, I would suggest this is a political issue and the best thing to do is to write to the elected officials who are responsible for naming the shelter and give them real facts about how this works best? Kristine |
| I saw the video yesterday. About 40 seconds into the video you'll see 3? OESs that appear to be horribly matted. |
| OMG thoses poor babies, is helpn the way? |
| You can follow this case by visiting the
ASPCA's blog- http://www.aspca.org/blog/ |
| |
Mad Dog wrote: - you know how these situations are - it's hard to say till all of the details come out.
Here are just some of the details: http://www.channel3000.com/download/200 ... 518928.pdf It will be interesting to see what the defendant and her atty have to say this week in her defense. |
| Ah shelters.........
Fortunately things are better here now, but back when I first got into rescue we were told point blank, if the dog can be adopted thru the shelter they will not work with rescue. They were looking at the revenue only. When they realized they could not adopt the dog, rescue would be called and given 24 hours to get the dog. It was horrible. So each shelter has differing priorities and various staff levels, training, etc. The way to change the bad ones is to make enough noise. That's what happened here. |
Anonymous wrote: Mad Dog wrote: - you know how these situations are - it's hard to say till all of the details come out. Here are just some of the details: http://www.channel3000.com/download/200 ... 518928.pdf It will be interesting to see what the defendant and her atty have to say this week in her defense. |
Odd that the Dane County Humane Society's executive director was there as early as February and returned with the DCHS's vet equipped with a hidden camera, all the while generating written reports that express concern about vet care and sanitation and access to unfrozen water and that the Richland Shelter was housing animals in an unheated pole barn in Wisconsin in winter, yet apparently not feeling compelled to do anything about it until almost four months later. 
Kristine |
SheepieBoss wrote: Ah shelters.........
Fortunately things are better here now, but back when I first got into rescue we were told point blank, if the dog can be adopted thru the shelter they will not work with rescue. They were looking at the revenue only. When they realized they could not adopt the dog, rescue would be called and given 24 hours to get the dog. It was horrible. So each shelter has differing priorities and various staff levels, training, etc. The way to change the bad ones is to make enough noise. That's what happened here. Yes, I believe so. And don't forget different levels of funding. The shelter where I used to volunteer before I moved was in a more rural but rather affluent county. Small and well run, with excellent fundraising efforts, but certainly not flush like some of our bigger shelters are. The then executive director is a friend of mine through agility and my girls' breeder was on the board for a period of time. She ended up leaving after a disagreement with the board about working with breed rescues - she was basically told they are unnecessary, and in this shelter's case that was true. Purebred dogs were few and far between and they needed them both to draw people in as well as for the revenue. I never argued with them because I trusted my friend to do a good job evaluating dogs and also in terms of placement, but I used to chuckle over the fact that she'd ask me to help with grooming on anything but an OES. They didn't get many, but the few times they did she never told me till after they were placed, if at all. Silly. I would have happily have sent people to adopt directly from them and I told her so a number of times. Kristine |
Quote: There was video from last year and a kennel run full of youngish OES from the looks of it whom didn't look bad, frankly, and in general bedding was clean and so on.
Wondering if that old video's still available. If it were me, I'd be comparing markings and patterns to rule out any possibility that these OESs in the ASPCA video are same ones filmed last year. Hopefully these are new dogs that just arrived and their coats weren't neglected by those entrusted to care for them. I guess we all just have to wait and see what happens. |
Ron wrote: Anonymous wrote: Mad Dog wrote: - you know how these situations are - it's hard to say till all of the details come out. Here are just some of the details: http://www.channel3000.com/download/200 ... 518928.pdf It will be interesting to see what the defendant and her atty have to say this week in her defense. And we thought puppy mills were bad 
Here is a 'shelter' sanctioned by the county and run at least partially on public funds, yet all these animals are clearly living in miserable, horrifying conditions. I am a shelter dog trainer, and I see abused and neglected animals come in every day, but this is a first for me: The 'shelter' is abusing the animals. I fervently hope that this is an isolated incident, but I have a feeling it's not. This is a publicly funded shelter perpetuating the worst kind of wholesale cruelty. Again I have to ask, why was there so little oversight? There is no defense possible. Matting and illness aside (these can happen in any shelter, and while it is horrifying, it is not necessarily an overall indictment if it is handled in a prompt and professional manner) there is NO EXCUSE for not providing the basics of heat, clean bedding and food and water. Even if funds are limited, this operator was required by law to provide this to all animals in her care and clearly did not. I agree heartily with previous posts that say that breed rescues should be a mandatory option in this kind of circumstance. This woman was clearly overwhelmed and not equipped to handle her situation. It's true that shelters do not like to hand over purebred dogs to breed rescue because of the factors described in other posts and, while I understand the logic (sort of) I vehemently disagree with it. So many dogs needing help, so little space. It should never be about anything but the health and happiness of as many animals as possible. Sorry for the long post, but this situation sickens me.  It's the hot topic at my shelter, that's for sure. |
| well technically those are charges and may end up being true or not. In the details as you read them it does sound like someone who got in over their head and was having trouble dealing with certain realities. |
| I came across another OES picture from this raid.
I would really like to know how long this dog was at this location. http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/451981 http://www.madison.com/wsj/photo.php?im ... 109252.JPG Has OES rescue been contacted to help with the OESs or do they have to be held as evidence since they were taken away and not voluntarily given up? |
6Girls wrote: I came across another OES picture from this raid.
I would really like to know how long this dog was at this location. http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/451981 http://www.madison.com/wsj/photo.php?im ... 109252.JPG Has OES rescue been contacted to help with the OESs or do they have to be held as evidence since they were taken away and not voluntarily given up? The Dane County shelter that took possession of the seized dogs reportedly distributed them to various other shelters as soon as the woman running the Richland shelter had agreed to give up claim to all but about ten of the dogs which were reportedly her personal dogs. According to her, all of the OES fell into the latter category and have been returned to her. Kristine |
Quote: According to her, all of the OES fell into the latter category and have been returned to her.
So you're saying this dog was returned to Jennifer? http://www.madison.com/wsj/photo.php?im ... 109252.JPG Grrreat. |
6Girls wrote: Quote: According to her, all of the OES fell into the latter category and have been returned to her. So you're saying this dog was returned to Jennifer? http://www.madison.com/wsj/photo.php?im ... 109252.JPG Grrreat. After being shaved, bathed and examined for medical issues, apparently so. Kristine |
| OMG How could someone keep their OWN dog in that condition?
And they allowed her to keep the dog pictured? If this is the case, it proves the coat neglect took place while the OESs were in her care. VERY disturbing... |
6Girls wrote: OMG How could someone keep their OWN dog in that condition?
And they allowed her to keep the dog pictured? If this is the case, it proves the coat neglect took place while the OESs were in her care. VERY disturbing... Jaci - we've had owner surrenders - four to be exact - in the last few months alone that have looked about that bad, sans perhaps as much, hm, discoloring <crinkles nose> I admit we were pretty floored to learn that the OES were considered among her personal dogs. Kristine |
| Yeah, I know... I've seen them too. More lately due to the economy. I
feel the same way about each one. There are no acceptable excuses for anyone keeping an OES with a coat in that bad a condition. If you own this breed, that coat needs to come off if you can't maintain it. I'm preaching to the choir.  Keeping an OES with a coat in that
bad a condition is neglect plain and simple. hmm... I was out mowing the lawn so it gave me some time to think.  Trying to
figure out why the authorities would allow her to keep any dogs not to mention several said to be high maintenance ones. The public often doesn't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. Could it be that this allows the authorities access to her property not only to keep an eye on these 10 dogs and those she might bring in later?
There's another video showing 4 OESs in a cage... wondering if these are her pets and how many were actually on the property... http://www.channel3000.com/news/19534004/detail.html |
| Here is a link to DCHS
http://www.giveshelter.org/sitemgr/shelter_news99 |
| Jaci - there is a steady stream of these seizures around the country - some legitimate, some, frankly, are questionable, and only a minority are directed at private shelters/animal sanctuaries.
Anyway, there's a certain predictable process. This case deviates in some ways and was probably handled better than many in other states for reasons I won't get into except to say that unless authorities (and some times even this is questionable depending on who is involved) are able to browbeat a person into signing all animals over by threatening them with legal hell and damnation as they enter the property and before charges are even made, there is incentive, as there presumably was in this case, to negotiate a deal whereupon the person agrees to sign all but X number of animals over to authorities. This expedites the animals' release for sale/adoption and takes the strain off trying to care for them for months while cases are pending. Frankly, it is much better all around to not leave the animals hanging in legal limbo. In the case of the OES, as bad as their coats looked, there is nothing to say at this point that even though she couldn't care appropriately for 270 animals, she can't manage ten. If she hadn't opted to keep the OES (we were told 4 or 5, the person we spoke to wasn't sure at the time) we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I think we were all a little surprised that she declared the OES as her personal dogs, but on the other hand that would explain why they were there for so long (apparently) with no effort to "rehome" them. And also why she would have multiples of a breed that really isn't that common. Authorities must have felt she had a legitimate claim to them. The case isn't over yet so we'll just have to see how it unfolds. Kristine |
| Yes... that would be the legal process. Animals willingly surrendered are free to find new homes. Those not must be held for the legal system to decide on.
Quote: If she hadn't opted to keep the OES (we were told 4 or 5, the person we spoke to wasn't sure at the time) we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Correct... I'm usually breed specific when I assist. I would instead be asking which rescue had possession of these OESs. Then privately asking whether they had all the bases covered financially. Quote: In the case of the OES, as bad as their coats looked, there is nothing to say at this point that even though she couldn't care appropriately for 270 animals, she can't manage ten.
If this is indeed one of her own personal pets, let's hope so- http://www.madison.com/wsj/photo.php?im ... 109252.JPG |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|