Comments on: Kennel Owner Guilty of Cruelty to Dogs Seized Under Dangerous Dogs Act

By: Felicity

Felicity — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:25:04 +0000

thats the problem when you allow dogs to be held in secret kennels!
you make those dogs targets for abuse and neglet. this isn’t the first time! dogs have returned home with untreated cuts, scores and broken teeth.

he problably thought that no one would find out, as no one comes to see them and they’d most likely be destroyed.

i hope the judge decided the fates of the dogs takes what they’ve been though and allows them to go home on the index of exempted dogs!

By: Dave the Dog

Dave the Dog — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:52:21 +0000

If this is a true account, did you sign the dog over?
If you didn't then the dog can't be PTS.
Speak to Deed not Breed, Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue etc for advice and do it urgently.

By: pauline

pauline — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:48:46 +0000

we had a dog witn some pittball in her and on monday the police come and tuck her away and said there are going to kill her on friday my 5 year old boy is so unset with this

By: David Wright

David Wright — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:15:09 +0000

We left our cairn terrier at Hill Top Kennels for 15 days this summer and she was very well looked after and the girl working there commented what a lovely dog she is. Barbara, who runs K9, and operates from Mr Millingtons kennels, clipped our dog on the day of collection so she was not only looking very healthy, but also clean and beautiful. I would have no hesitation in leaving her there again. As for the owner and the prison sentence, you shouldn’t own illegal dogs in the first place.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:24:40 +0000

im a 13 year old dog lover and this guy does this to his dogs if he cannot handle them then he should not take on this responsibility people who allow these dogs to get to that state are sick because they have stopped a dog that could of had a better life with sum1 else

By: j preston

j preston — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:27:23 +0000

i am the owner of seven of these dogs and can assure you none of these dogs were on any sort of drugs or medication they were family pets and dearly loved and missed beyond words i have plenty of evidence to support how well looked after they all were the rspca were not involved in the seizure of our pets the only intervened when three of our other dogs were returned home in such a state we could not let milling ton get away with this we called the rspca but justice has not been done i received a three and half month prison sentence for owing illigal dogs and a life time ban from ownig animals which is going to appeal in liverpool crown court millington appliengd for a news blackout which was granted but not enforced

By: Dave the Dog

Dave the Dog — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:48:32 +0000

Diane
I repeat, the RSPCA were not involved with these dogs until a complaint was made to them. How do I know?, repeated. I think that would be fairly obvious from what I have said. I am not RSPCA but see the article by Ryan ‘RSPCA Hits Back At Dangerous Dog Seizure Allegations’ on the 4/04/08.

By: Diane

Diane — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:58:52 +0000

Plenty of evidence of the dogs condition was proivided to the court during the trial.
How do you know this?
there was no sign that the dogs taken there were on any steroids or indeed any other ‘drugs’. How do you know this? The kennel owner was told on 2 seperate occasions that they were pummped with steriods but convieniently these conversations were forgotten about when the case came to court,
The Police and RSPCA ‘responsible’ for taking them there? Sorry, but the RSPCA were not involved. As for the Rspca not being involved they siezed the dogs from the address as was shown on an ITV news programme so how can they not be involved?
only authorised statutory bodies who needed to know were allowed the information. How do you know this?

I have read the owner of the kennels statement he submitted to the court, I also know that he hasnt been allowed his say in the media about any of this and is going to loose business because of it,
I also know that he had to plead guilty as he can not afford to go to a higher court and fight his corner,
I know all this because I have as i saud before i have read his statement which he has on the front desk at the kennels and after asking his permission i will gladly let you have a copy of it, he wasnt asked to look after the dogs he was told the dogs were on thier way to him giving him not much choice but to say yes,

By: Dave the Dog

Dave the Dog — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:10:30 +0000

Diane
Just to cover a few of your points. Steroids, there was no sign that the dogs taken there were on any steroids or indeed any other ‘drugs’.

Where is the ‘before’ evidence? This is a newspaper report not a trial transcript. Plenty of evidence of the dogs condition was privided to the court during the trial.

The Police and RSPCA ‘responsible’ for taking them there? Sorry, but the RSPCA were not involved. Only authorised statutory bodies who needed to know were allowed the information.

Why were they not reprimanded? (the Police) How do you know they weren’t? The report is about the kennel owners trial and conviction.

They are the ones trained to deal with ‘this type of dog’! What type of dog? They were seized because of their looks not for any aggression or attacks made. They required normal care and attention as any dog does.

Pass the buck? He was the experienced kennels owner who agreed to look after these dogs, no one else.

By: Alison Green

Alison Green — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:23:12 +0000

Diane,

He pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering of these dogs. Somewhere along the line he made a choice to let these dogs suffer above others in his care. There has been no mention of any of the dogs being “pumped ” full of steriods and contary to media hype that is actually very rare. Most of the dogs in the Merseyside area taken as type are simply pet dogs.

These “family run kennels” agreed to take the dogs. They would have been paid for it. This type of dog (many cross breed who may or may not fit the vague description of type) shouldnt be difficult for a kennel owner of 20 odd years. It certainly doesnt excuse his treatment of the dogs.

There is a very simple answer to the problem the kennel owner has faced and that is dont take the dogs in the first place. With the law about to be enforced I hope this case is a reminder to others holding the dogs that they have a duty to the dogs, illegal or not.

I know those who work hard to help good owner of these dogs will make sure any future concerns on the dogs held will be brought to the attention of those like the RSPCA.