Did any one see 20/20 tonight, about the SPCA..

[Fox-Gal]

...stealing pets from breeders for their own financial gain?

After I got over my own personal feeling about the dogs living in pins and the amount of dogs some had, I was shocked in a way.

They where taking these dogs away on the grounds that they where under feed and living in their own waste. I didn't see any under feed dog or nasty pins. Most all, where fat healthy looking dogs, they even made a comment about one being overweight.

The under cover vet even said there was no reason to remove this dogs from their owners. But they did and then, they sold them for their own gains.

I left the show with mixed feeling all around. No I hate dogs being raised in pins.........but there is no law against that. I hate that anyone has that many breads to sell.....but again not against the law.

It left me wondering, what if it was me? OMG, they find a flea on Tuffy......He's gotten to be taken away!!! OH no, Odie is standing in his own waste........nasty......got to take him away. With me saying, I'm sorry, I haven't gotten around to cleaning all the waste from my 5 acres, not my fault Odie is dingy. Oh and on a day like today, where it rained all day and my dogs are dirty, from going out to pee and play. Does that mean they live in nasty conditions and should be taken away, if I don't have a chance to clean them up, ASAP.

The show just got to me a bit, to much power, in the hands of maybe the wrong people, but made me thankful I don't live in Texas's, no appeal law there. :rolleyes:

[aly]

I personally don't believe that it is for their own financial gain. If I saw a dog being raised in a pen, I'd probably take him/her too.

I wouldn't let one show sway your opinions. If you hear this from many sources, then that might be a concern. Maybe I am biased because I worked for the SPCA and am deeply involved in rescue. But I'm not going to believe they steal dogs for profit.

Which SPCA in specific were they talking about? The ASPCA?

[aly]

Just found this in case anyone is interested:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=817494&page=1

From the article:


Some animal owners claimed that when they became overextended in caring for their animals, an SPCA accused them of neglect, confiscated their animals and sold them.

The SPCAs then keep the money.

I think the show should investigate how MUCH money shelters put into every animal in their care. I don't see why they would have to give the money to the abusive/neglectful owners. The adoption fee almost never covers the cost of caring for the animal so its not like they're making money.

The article at least pointed out that every SPCA is different, which is a crucial point. They should have made that more apparent though.

**edit** Grr, I just noticed there were 4 pages of the article and read the rest of it. It really made me mad with the way they portrayed that. All of the cases they described sounded valid and reasonable to me. I seriously do NOT think a good "breeder" would have 120 DOGS :mad: :mad: :mad: There's no way she could properly care for ALL of them, no way. And it doesn't matter what they're worth... the shelters will not charge $600 just because a dog is pure-bred. Some of them may have slightly higher prices for pure-breds, but most don't.

[Fox-Gal]

Originally posted by ALU

I wouldn't let one show sway your opinions. If you hear this from many sources, then that might be a concern. Maybe I am biased because I worked for the SPCA and am deeply involved in rescue. But I'm not going to believe they steal dogs for profit.

Which SPCA in specific were they talking about? The ASPCA?

I did do mean to say they swayed my opinion, I too don't think pets should be raised in pins.........But it is not against the law, so from a legal point, that can not be a reason for removing a pet.

The reasons for removing the pets, was that they where being starved...and clearly they where not. It's the reason they gave from removing the pet, that got to me, their reasons where clearly not straight forward........they fudged on things. And in this state, Texas, there is no appeals to get your pets back. Once they take them away, for honest reason or not so honest reasons, you can never get them back. Thats wrong in my opinion. Everyone should have the right, to prove themselves innocent. I would hate to have anyone come in my yard and come up with some reason to take my babies away and there not be any hope for me to get them back. To much control, to much freedom, knowing that there's no recourse for the owners.

And then when they interviewed this Man, in charged, they did catch him in lies..........which got me wondering, if there not something wrong here, Why lie, is you have nothing to hide and not doing anything wrong??


Profit, Was the shows view on it not mine, I was just saying what the show said.

[wolfsoul]

20/20 just started here. I'm going to watch it.

I know for a fact that thhe SPCAs in BC are anything BUT reputable. They breed dogs, sell the puppies and then kill the parents. All of their donation money goes towards the workers. The manager of the Kelowna SPCA makes $200,000 a year. When he started out, he rented a home. Now he owns three houses.

[Fox-Gal]

Originally posted by aly
**edit** Grr, I just noticed there were 4 pages of the article and read the rest of it. It really made me mad with the way they portrayed that. All of the cases they described sounded valid and reasonable to me. I seriously do NOT think a good "breeder" would have 120 DOGS :mad: :mad: :mad: There's no way she could properly care for ALL of them, no way. And it doesn't matter what they're worth... the shelters will not charge $600 just because a dog is pure-bred. Some of them may have slightly higher prices for pure-breds, but most don't.

I just saw your edit and wanted to say I agree with having 120 dogs.......no one should have that many dogs. But again, not against the law, sadly. As from what the show said, her vet even said there was no real reason to take them away and if I remember right, this was a vet that worked for the SPCA. Till he spoke against them in this case, now he no longer works there.

As for all the reason sounded valid, I think it's something to see, not read to get a full image of things. It's that legal stand point again, legally they where ok, what we believe is right.........thats a different story.

But I have to add after seeing some of these places, they where not the best, but in watching, most where still better then our local SPCA set up here. Maybe I need that SPCA to come over here and shut down my SPCA. ;)

[aly]

Yeah, I know there are bad SPCAs and other shelters out there. Maybe I am overly naive, but I just can't fathom someone being in RESCUE for PROFIT. It seems so absurd to me because I've been doing rescue and have lost tons of money, not gained any.

Even though 120 dogs aren't against the law, I still have to side with the people who took them away. Maybe not legal, but definately in the best interest of the animal.

I just thought the article was very one-sided and they didn't quite do enough investigating. Of course people who have had their animals taken away will talk badly about the shelter since they're bitter and want revenge. I would like to have seen it be more neutral.

I dunno. I think there are tons more good shelters than bad ones, so that is why the article upset me. I just dont want anyone to watch the show then be hesitant to help out their local SPCA.

[Giselle]

What I find irritating is that nobody has mentioned that those people were puppy millers, plain and simple. I also find it irritating that those whiney puppy millers turned back around and said the SPCA was trying to make money by "selling" the dog for 120$.


Ummm...Because those dogs were from puppy millers, they were, in consequence, intact. The SPCA's purpose is to control pet overpopulation. As such, they speuter all dogs who pass through their facilities. This doesn't take a genius to figure out. The SPCA initiates a 120$ adoption fee to cover the speuter surgery, teeth cleaning, vaccinations (if the dog has not received them), and meds if needed.

Fox-Gal, I see that you have many pets and I can understand why you have mixed feelings. However, I know you know what puppy millers are and those cases were pure puppy mills. They bred dogs in filthy cages (I mean, come on, the dogs were muddy and matted), namely small Poodle mixes. As well, Tom Brokaw admitted that the living spaces needed improvement.

Well, I'd like to see those people live in "less than desirable" conditions for their whole lives and have themselves bred every heat cycle.

Sorry, I'm passionate about my breed, and my breed happens to be one of the most to be bred (or ruined, for lack of better word) by BYBs and pup millers. Needless to say, I was fuming at the obvious one-sidedness of 20/20 and Tom Brokaw's sarcasm made me .... uh, let's just say it isn't legal. ;)

[Giselle]

I also wanted to say. No, keeping dogs in pens for their whole lives and breeding them every heat cycle is not against any legal law. No, keeping 120 dogs with a kennel license is not against legal law. No, breeding dozens of breeds and dogs at any single time is not against legal law.

However, it is against my moral law. And I listen to a higher authority than 20/20.

[wolfsoul]

Well, after watching it...I'm glad they took the dogs away from the breeders...Even though they did do it illegally -- the last breeder's dogs were looked over by the vet and nothing was wrong with them. They weren't even dirty. Either way, I strongly dislike overpopulation so I'm glad the dogs were taken.

I do find it very sad however, that they took the animals from the animal sanctuary. This was a lady doing her best to rescue senior and injured animals, nurse them to health, and then adopt them out. There was nothing wrong with what she was doing. She didn't breed the animals. I feel like the SPCA saw this as competition.

[Fox-Gal]

Originally posted by Giselle
I also wanted to say. No, keeping dogs in pens for their whole lives and breeding them every heat cycle is not against any legal law. No, keeping 120 dogs with a kennel license is not against legal law. No, breeding dozens of breeds and dogs at any single time is not against legal law.

However, it is against my moral law. And I listen to a higher authority than 20/20.

That was my main point.............it's not illegal and thats what bothered me. No one should be above the law. Morally right, the law is still the law and as much as we don't agree with it sometimes, it's still the law. Making it acceptable to bend the law, can lead to more bending and should we give any one person that right, to bend at their will?

And yes I know what Puppy mills are, they where clearly puppy mills, no question there and I to am glad they where shut down, for moral reasons. I just didn't like the bending of the law.

The show made me wonder about my Brandy, she was taken away from what I was told, that she lived in horrible conditions. But when I got her, took her to the vet, he said she was in perfect health, a little over weight, but all in all perfect. Her ears and tail had already been done and she was tattooed. I got her 1 day after they rescued her, so was she living in bad conditions?

She was fat, healthy, had her ears tail and tattooing done, no worms, no nothing, perfect. A day after I was told she lived in the worse conditions they had seem, in a small pin, in her own waste and that under normal conditions they said they would not have adopted her out that soon, but sense it was me, they did, knowing I would take care of any health problems that came up. There was none.

So was she taken care of properly and loved and just taken away for for what ever reasons and I was just told this horrible story to make it sound acceptable? I just wonder now.............even thought I'm happy as can be that I got her and feel that no one could love her more then me. I know from when I got Cannilla, who was living in horrible condition, living in her own waste, she was full of wip worms, skinny and very sickly and showed signs of being un loved and cared for. Brandy had no signs, except for being happy. They said from the time Brandy was born she lived in this small pin, never to be let out. But, She was house broken....And leashed trained? if she lived in a pin, how did she learn to jump at the front door, when ever she needs out?? :confused: Was she taken from a home and not a pin? Was she loved? and does this person miss her loved pet? I don't like wondering I want to know the right thing was done. Not that I'd give her back. :D

[bckrazy]

I saw part of that... and had to turn it off. It's disgusting to stick up for those people :(. I strongly believe that breeders *need* to be limited to how many pups they produce per year and how many dogs they own, kennel license or not. Honestly, how can TWO people take care of 120 dogs in a way that is fulfilling and healthy for the animals?! There is NO way. what I don't fully understand is why the SPCA and Animal Control is SO freakin lenient on these scumbags, people who destroy animals lives and use them then dump them for their own profit should be in jail. Its these puppy mills, the puppies they sell and their puppies, that are FILLING shelters, killing dogs, costing tax-payers $millions. It makes no sense to me why 20/20 would stick up for puppy millers :confused:... and, have they ever done a show about all of the millions of dogs that are euthanized every year? or the millions of dogs that suffer abuse/neglect in puppy mills? They're more concered about the feelings of the "poor" "hard-working" animal abusers? ewwww.

And, no, the ASPCA makes no profit from siezing puppy mill dogs. Most come in with waay more health problems and needs, on top of altering and shots and housing and feeding, than the $80-120 adoption fee they get. How much money would a puppy mill owner make on the poor dogs they breed and breed until they can't breed anymore? probably $10,000+ on each female, more on males... from selling their puppies to random brokers and whoever will pay. I don't care if that isn't the law, it *should* be, and I'm glad some one is making steps toward enforcing that law. I've never seen any amendment in the constitution granting stupid people to do whatever they want to whatever animals they can find, and making the entire country and all of the animals suffer for it. Yeah.. that show made me a little bit angry.



However, it is against my moral law. And I listen to a higher authority than 20/20.

so well put, Sophie!! ;)

[wolfsoul]

They didn't just show puppy mills --- they also seized all of the animals from an "animal sanctuary." There was nothing wrong with them and the woman wasn't breeding them. They were senior and injured dogs and other animals that were being adopted out. There environment was fine. I thought it was terrible that the SPCA took them all.

[Fox-Gal]

Originally posted by bckrazy
I don't care if that isn't the law, it *should* be, and I'm glad some one is making steps toward enforcing that law.
:confused: Not a law, but enforcing the law??? :confused: Can't enforce something that not a law?


they also seized all of the animals from an "animal sanctuary."
Exactly, Can we not see that as wrong? or our we so focused on the puppy mills that we can't see that a good helpful person was hurt, by their "enforcing the law" thats not a law!


the ASPCA makes no profit from siezing puppy mill dogs.
As for them making a profit, all I can go by is the story with Brandy. They shut this person down and there was 12 pure breed Min Pin's. all adopted out for anywhere to $180 to $200. The Min Pin's where all adopted out within 2 weeks, most in a week. When talking to the woman, she said to me, so many people want pure breeds, that there are never here long enough for us to have to invest much into them. So no, they didn't make a huge profit like the puppy mill people would have, but they did make a profit of some sort. She told me, we get calls all the time for pure breeds, people not wanting to pay the huge fees for them, hoping we have what they are looking for, here. I'm not saying thats why they do it, it just an observation.



Hopefully no one gets me wrong here, I am very happy they shut down the puppy mills, as they should be. What does bother me, is the bending of law. Even if the reasons are good, laws are around for a reason and people seem to have no problems with bending them, when it comes to others, but let it happen to then one day???

Don't bend the laws........Change them, if they are not working right. We should not so lightly except the bending of laws, for what ever reason, then the laws become more of a guide line, to be bent at any time a person feels like doing so. There are many laws I disagree with, but I still obey them, because they are laws. I don't get to pick and chose what ones I like or don't like, it's not my right to do so, as it is no ones right.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by bckrazy

And, no, the ASPCA makes no profit from siezing puppy mill dogs.

That is completely untrue for our SPCA! The more puppy mill or "so-called" abused cases that our SPCA gets, the more donations they get. Barely a cent goes towards the animals, but to the workers at the SPCA that sit around and BREED the dogs they get. I was in the Youth Corp Group for the SPCA when I was younger -- the lack of care I witnessed was enough to make me quit. They have a big pen in the back that is usually covered so that no one can see -- that's where the unaltered dogs are left to breed. I've seen workers not give the dogs their medications (they make up stupid stories like "He was fussing, I'll just give it to him tomorrow"). They make TONS of money because they have a constant supply of animals and they don't provide the health care the animals need.

[bckrazy]

Wolfsoul, I'm sorry... I really don't know much about the SPCA in Canda. I was just talking about my experience with the ASPCA, I volunteered for them for 2 years and have adopted 3 animals from them. In the U.S., I consider it *way* better than 99% of animal control/city shelters (our ASPCA never euthanizes), and they would never breed dogs. That's just my experience with it...

[DogLover9501]

Originally posted by bckrazy
Wolfsoul, I'm sorry... I really don't know much about the SPCA in Canda. I was just talking about my experience with the ASPCA, I volunteered for them for 2 years and have adopted 3 animals from them. In the U.S., I consider it *way* better than 99% of animal control/city shelters (our ASPCA never euthanizes), and they would never breed dogs. That's just my experience with it...

I just wanted to point out that it's not all of Canada, as I love our SPCA ;)

[aly]

I'm sure there are bad SPCAs and good ones, just like anything else. The point I was trying to make earlier was that there are far more GOOD SPCAs (at least in the US) and it seems like the show was going out of its way to highlight some negatives, which I'm not even believing to be true.

If someone wants to make a huge profit, the shelter business is not the way to go. Even if they did make a *small* profit on the purebreds because they only kept them a week, the profit that they did make is not near enough to cover their costs for all the other animals that they lose money on. Adoption fees never cover the complete care that the animals receive.

I have to agree with bckrazy, its SICK SICK SICK that the show supported BYBers and puppy mills. Even if you call yourself a sanctuary or a rescue, I don't think that should give immunity to having the animals taken away due to neglect. A lot of the excuses those people were using was they were "overwhelmed" and couldn't care for the animals at that point. Well, when people get overwhelmed, is that an excuse to stop feeding or paying attention to their children? They'd be snatched up by the CPA so fast. I don't think animals are any different.

(I've worked for 2 different SPCAs and have dealt with many others, including some in different states like CA, MI, and CO, and they've all been wonderful)

[bckrazy]

I *completely* agree with Aly... especially about "sanctuaries". Recently, our ASPCA found a "sanctuary" in a small local house, the woman claimed she fostered and rescued dogs, but they were all filthy, starved, and breeding. She was more of a collector than a savior :(... maybe her intentions were good at first, but its completely wrong to go on like that if you know you cannot take care of 40 dogs. I'm really glad that there are good people out there that can save some of these pups.

eww... I really think 20/20 is just desperately trying to find some "scandal" to uncover.

I totally agree with Aly about ASPCA's too... all of the ASPCA's I've seen have been unbelievably awesome!! The dogs are all kept in huge rooms, with at least one big bed and a bunch of toys and kongs and hours or playtime everyday in a large yard. They even have simulated living rooms, with couches and chairs, where 3-4 dogs hang out and people get to meet them. The cat rooms are awesome, even though they have 100+ cats at any time, each gets their own room with cat trees, slats to climb for exercise and totally clean boxes. Plus they have at least 5 "cat colonies" for a small group of cat-friendly cats, which are huge rooms with tons of toys, tunnels, and cat trees. They don't euthanize anyone, socialize and evaluate temperaments, go everywhere they can to hold adoption seminars, etc. And I can't say I believe they make very much money at all. I personally know that an officer for the ASPCA makes $50,000 per year, tops. And that is nothing for California :p