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

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.

By: Diane

Diane — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:13:17 +0000

I aggree that these dogs should receive the same level of care regardless of breed,with my experience of the kennels in question i would assume that they were given the same level of care, but ask yourself one question, were these dogs pumped with medication ( steroids ) before they were siezed from the owner? if so then sureley they would have been suffering from withdrawal symptoms and therefore no ammount of food and T.L.C. would make much difference for a while untill the said drugs ( illegaly given ) were out of the system,I assume most people reading and commenting on the story wouldnt have realised this as it is something that isnt stated, also where is the picture showing evidence from before the dog was taken into kennels surely the police and r.s.p.c.a are required to have this evidence, the lack of this gives us nothing to compere the picture shown with, I aggree that the police and R.S.P.C.A should have kept an eye on these dogs as they are responsable for taking them there, why were they not reprimanded for thier lack of care in this case, after all they are the ones who are trained to deal with this type of dog and not normal family run kennels, it seems like pass the buck and blame the guy who tried to make a difference

By: Alison Green

Alison Green — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:59:57 +0000

“This is the work that the RSPCA should be doing, preventing animal suffering, not getting all political lobbyist and unoffical government enforcement agents!”

Couldnt agree with you more on that. If the RSPCA continue to deal with this sort of thing they would gain alot of respect. Should they “branch out” however that respect will vanish very quickly.

It is very worrying, with Defra requesting police enforce the law and these unknown “initiatives” we are due to see, that basic level of care is not being followed.

Had I allowed a dog i had care of to get in the state shown above I would expect, rightly, to be banned from keeping or caring for any animal again. Why is this person different?

By: Ordinary Dog Owner

Ordinary Dog Owner — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:26:30 +0000

Typical profit before compassion scenario. These dogs were seized on the assumption that they were prohibited or at least prohibited type dogs, why did they not receive the same level of care as the boarding dogs that were taken to these kennels, the kennels or the police are not the judges of whether they are or are not prohibited?

Did they receive a lesser level of care because they were assumed to be ‘dangerous dogs’?

Who was looking after them, or obviously was not if the photograph is anything to go by?

What council licenses these kennels?

Why did Merseyside Police fail to keep an eye on these dogs whilst they were at these kennels, after all they were paying for the dogs stay, surely they should have ascertained just what the conditions were going to be like for these dogs?

All dogs should be kept in the same conditions regardless of their breed or their assumed breed, if they were kept differently because of what they were assumed to be, then this is Breed Specific Discimination (BSD)

Maybe the guy did bite of more than he could chew, but there is no excuse for being a kennel owner/manager and then ending up with dogs looking like this or enduring such conditions.

Disgraceful, this shows why people who work or handle dogs need to be competent in what they are doing, just because you can afford to own or run a kennel means nothing, as this case sadly reflects.

This is the work that the RSPCA should be doing, preventing animal suffering, not getting all political lobbyist and unoffical government enforcement agents!