|03-08-2014 12:40 PM|
|BowWowMeow||Wouldn't they have a tattoo, a chip and a contract? How could anyone send their dog overseas without a legal contract and some sort of irrefutable identification? If the dogs are worth a lot of money, I am sure their owners would have done everything possible to protect their property.|
|03-07-2014 08:57 PM|
I should have clarified, some of the dogs may not be AKC registered...they are there from out of the country on a breeding contract(but should have microchips)
I wouldn't rely on AKC to identify the ownership or the dogs....process of elimination until or unless Dawn hands over all the paperwork on everyone.
|03-07-2014 08:39 PM|
Permanent ID is a big thing with the AKC. To get hips and elbows OFA's you need a tattoo or microchip. Also, if you have more than a certain number of dogs, all the dogs have to either be chipped or tattood. And the same is true overseas, I believe.
If the dogs belong to other people, then they should be able to identify them.
What do you do in the way of co-ownerships though? Do you relinquish the dog to the co-owner? Do you charge them for the board of the dog? Do you charge them 1/2 the estimated value of the dog, to put against what has been spent on the dogs. Since a co-owner owns only a share of the dog, should they just get the dog free and clear?
It sounds like a nightmare.
If the breeder was well-known in the show circle, than I just can't blame people that co-owned dogs there, or leased a dog to her. I think that when we respect someone, like their dogs, want to incorporate their lines into our lines, we are unlikely to think that they are seriously neglecting dogs in their care.
I expect their are probably some people in the rescue world that tend to be above suspicion too.
|03-07-2014 08:22 AM|
Because most of these dogs were in the show/competition world, they should have identifiable chips or tattoo's. I wouldn't trust AKC papers to be with all dogs/some may be imports.
I'd like to know EJQ, how you knew the underweight dogs you bathed were 2 yrs old....as nothing had been produced to show individual information?
|03-07-2014 01:11 AM|
|03-07-2014 12:57 AM|
|03-07-2014 12:42 AM|
I was considering the 'all they have to do is produce the paperwork' comment (re: claiming ownership/proving ownership of dogs seized). It would be extremely difficult to match paperwork to an individual dog without some method of permanent ID. Anyone could claim that a particular "Black and Tan GSD" was theirs with proof in hand; and have a different dog's papers.
How is that handled? Aside from potentially enabling greedy false claims it would be equally difficult (and infinitely more frustrating) to prove an ACTUAL claim. "Yes, that black and tan male german shepherd is mine!! Here are his papers, see? They say male, black and tan, GSD, born xx/xx/xx". Other than estimating age or referring to a DNA database (which quite a number of dogs aren't in) you're just spit out of luck as a co-owner or owner.
How frustrating! Definitely makes me glad all of mine are microchipped.
|03-07-2014 12:36 AM|
|03-07-2014 12:10 AM|
Going back to your other post, there does not have to be any proof that any claims are true in order for a judge to issue an injunction. The lack of clear evidence is kind of why the injunction gets ordered. It gives the situation a legal time out while facts are gathered. It doesn't mean anything other than that the judge has decided that ownership issues need to be untangled before anything can happen with the dogs.
Although it is sad for the dogs, because it really does put them in legal limbo, it is good for the people involved. It gives any actual owners a chance to prove ownership and it forces the shelter to slow the heck down and make sure they are doing everything they need to both legally and ethically to do right by the dogs.
There are no law suits from anyone claiming ownership that I am aware of. But I am only reading media reports so I might have missed something? I am just not finding any mention of law suits being filed. A blog post saying that there are/will be lawsuits isn't the same thing. And even after all the speculation about numerous dogs being owned by others, it looks like only one has a valid claim and not even that has been clarified. Steve Patch is not acting in any official way and he can say whatever he wants about working with people who are claiming ownership/co-ownership. He has no burden to meet. He could be doing nothing more than making a list of every defender she has who has claimed ownership. That doesn't make the claims valid. The judge will get to decide who has a valid claim. Hopefully those issues will be worked out by the time she is back in court.
As I said a long time ago. It isn't unusual in these situations for friends of the accused person to come forward and claim to own all or a portion of the seized animals. They think they are doing their friend a favor, and saving the animals from whatever the feared fate is. It really doesn't help in the end. It just makes people who have valid claims have to work that much harder to prove them, and it complicates a situation that is already emotionally charged for everyone involved.
|03-07-2014 12:08 AM|
|BowWowMeow||A court order is not a lawsuit. A court order simply prohibits the dogs being adopted out until the co-ownership claims are straightened out. I assume that the alleged co-owners will need to provide evidence of their ownership. I would imagine that would be quite simple -- they could just have a copy of their AKC papers sent as well as the contracts signed.|
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|