Puppy Mill in VA

[ColColt]

A southwestern Virginia puppy mill that was home to more than 600 breeding females is now the site of a huge rescue operation, with the owner agreeing to relinquish nearly 1,000 dogs for treatment and possible adoption.

Sounds to me like the dogs needed treatment of some kind here.

The dogs, including hundreds of puppies, are being removed from Horton's Pups in Hillsville and taken to an emergency-operations center set up nearby. The center is staffed by veterinarians helping on a volunteer basis and others, Mr. Larrowe said.

Staffed by vets? Again, some treatment much have been warranted to have them staff up with vets.

He eventually could face charges that include animal cruelty but has cooperated as authorities work to remove the dogs, treat them and send them to shelters.

In order to be facing charges for animal cruelty, at least a certain amount of them must have needed the services of a vet. Any way you slice it, no one needs that many animals to care for and it doesn't matter how big the quantity of workers. I wonder how the ASPCA would view this guy with his Noah's ark. Nothing wrong with breeding as none of us would have dogs if it wasn't for the breeder. I just have a problem with a single source having the quantity indicated. He was running a tremendous puppy mill-plain and simple.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

I don't think in this case that they are trying to create more laws, I do believe they are enforcing the laws on the books and that is what they need to do. If they had better inspections then maybe this person wouldn't have ended up with a 1000 dogs to begin with.

That's one of the problems with the laws they have on the books now. They don't have enough people to do the inspections.

But you are right, had he been inspected as he should have been he'd not have gotten to those numbers.

Peggy

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by ColColt

Sounds to me like the dogs needed treatment of some kind here.

If they had anything that needed real treatment it would have been mentioned. Or pictured. Remember that the AR people tend to exaggerate. The worse they can make this guy look the better they look. The original article said they only needed baths.

Staffed by vets? Again, some treatment much have been warranted to have them staff up with vets.

It's standard operating proceedure to take animals taken in a raid to the vet for a check up. So, no, that doesn't tell me anyone needed any treatment.

In order to be facing charges for animal cruelty, at least a certain amount of them must have needed the services of a vet. Any way you slice it, no one needs that many animals to care for and it doesn't matter how big the quantity of workers.

I didn't read anything about cruelty charges in the original article.

And no, no one "needs" that many animals. Shoot, I don't "need" as many as I have. But I want them and they are cared for. I disagree with numbers limits and if the animals are cared for I am not the one to decide how many animals anyone "needs" or should have.

I wonder how the ASPCA would view this guy with his Noah's.

They would be against it as they are in total agreement with the HSUS. An animal rights group who thinks we shouldn't breed at all.

Nothing wrong with breeding as none of us would have dogs if it wasn't for the breeder. I just have a problem with a single source having the quantity indicated. He was running a tremendous puppy mill-plain and simple.

I didn't say he wasn't running a puppy mill. And I didn't say there was any thing wrong with breeding. I did say I was not in agreement with puppy mills or with his breeding and selling methods.

Peggy

[Michael Romanos]

Peggy, You might be barking up the wrong tree in this. The bare facts speak for themselves. The authorities have been too kind. It is not a matter of getting caught out - it is the act that matters. The perpretator has had 1 to 1000 dogs too many.

[glencorgi]

[quote=Chip's Mom;34450]Well I always go with my heart over my head and my heart tells me this is no situation for any dog to live in. Bred heat cycle after heat cycle and kept in a small kennel or cage is no life for any dog no matter what the alterior motive is.

You are buying propaganda, and the same lies would be said about Chip and Dale's breeder. There is no evidence nor anything stated that the bitches were bred heat cycle after heat cycle. It would probably stun you to learn that the leading reproductive vet guru in the US does advise breeding early and back to back as in the best health interest of a bitch.

As far as having hired help, who sits up with the mama when she is in labor during the night or rushes her to the vet's in the middle of the night for a c section? The owner? That is fine and dandy unless he has several females all whelping at the same time and anything is possible. How many lay in their own blood and bleed to death?

You are bringing assumptions and propaganda into the story that there is no evidence for. We don't know that he didn't rush dams to the vets for c-sections or that he didn't have an on call vet that made kennel calls like some of the horse farms and livestock operations do. Nor do we know that he didn't have whelping areas where pregnant bitches were kept and puppies delivered allowing for more constant vigil over them. Most likely he only kept free whelping stock.

Like colcolt said doing the math, even if this person has 100 female dogs and all have a litter of puppies that is 10 puppies per dog which isn't realistic because we know not all of the females are going to have a litter at the same time, how is it possible for that few people to properly take care of these animals and give them the socialization and attention they need on a daily basis.

That isn't what I said or meant with breaking down the numbers. The dogs were of all ages, but they weren't broken down into how many adults and how many puppies. Say he had six Pug bitches and 3 had just had litters with 3 puppies in each litter. 6 + 9 now equals 15 Pugs. Corgis, will use six again and 3 litters with 8 in each litter. That now makes 30 corgis.

Then these puppies are shipped to pet stores. How can someone ship puppies out to a pet store and have no idea how they do, what homes they go to and if they catch any diseases on the way?

The pet stores from what I understand out of the several articles I've read were more local; they weren't shipped all over the country. The majority of his sales were direct to the home and puppy buyer. And as far as catching diseases on the way, that can happen with a well-screened home that stops at a rest stop on their way home to let a puppy potty.

If you are going to run a business, a person needs to know and follow the laws. if you break the law, then you deserve what you get

Horton is cooperating and bringing his business into compliance in addition to getting appropriate licensing.

...especially when your business involves warm blooded animals that have feelings just like we do.

But they don't have feelings just like we do, they have feelings, but they are not the same as ours. To attribute them the same feelings is doing a great disservice to them as dogs.

Being as I am one of the few, if maybe not the only one on this forum who has taken in dogs seized in such a raid, I might have a little more insight and experience. No temperament problems among the ones I had, they were wonderful delightful typical corgis. David's had far more problems with Bubba than any of them presented. Others on the forum have had more issues with their corgis from nurturing, one on one time in formative stages beginnings than I had out of any of those guys. And that is NOT saying Bubba nor any of the others weren't socialized and given appropriate attention, rather that unless you've walked in the shoes, don't let your imaginations run wild. I've had a corgi from an Amish auction and one couldn't hope for a better temperament and personality.

I am not condoning or supporting this high volume type breeding enterprise, but they do have their place in the pet market. Reputable responsible breeders cannot, nor would they really want to meet the demand of John Q Public for purebred dogs.

And for the record, the article Bonnie shared is the most AR slanted propaganda piece I have seen yet. I've been following the story since it broke and was reported on our local news (I am that close) and none of the others have had the tone the one she posted did. Make no mistake, had their been the slightest thing to capitalize on, they would have.

Debbie

[Chip's Mom]

Well Debbie I am confused. First of all, I heard about this from Chip's Uncle Jim and was curious so I did a google and that article is the one that I found. I thought it would be an interesting read for people on this forum as we are all opposed to puppy mills (or I thought we were) I understand that you are not happy with all that is going on in the dog world but you can't straddle the fence so to speak. You are either for or against puppy mills and either happy or sad that they are broken up. Maybe I am reading to much into this but it seems that you and Peggy are defending this man when in other threads you and Peggy are against people that breed for profit or are not involved in the showring or don't strictly breed to improve the breed and according to breed standard. I guess I just don't get it. Please clarify because I am getting the impression that you are so against the people that enforced this law that you are overlooking the crime and I don't mean any disrespect to you so please don't take it that way. I just need clarification to where you are coming from with this.

[glencorgi]

Quote:
A southwestern Virginia puppy mill that was home to more than 600 breeding females is now the site of a huge rescue operation, with the owner agreeing to relinquish nearly 1,000 dogs for treatment and possible adoption.

Sounds to me like the dogs needed treatment of some kind here.

As Peggy said, there is nothing unusual about having vets on the scene of a confiscation such as this. "Treatment" in this case can mean spay and neutering. Reports from shelters that received some of the dogs did not mention any major health issues, instead reports mentioned them being in good shape.


Quote:
The dogs, including hundreds of puppies, are being removed from Horton's Pups in Hillsville and taken to an emergency-operations center set up nearby. The center is staffed by veterinarians helping on a volunteer basis and others, Mr. Larrowe said.

Staffed by vets? Again, some treatment much have been warranted to have them staff up with vets.

One more time, not unusual at all. Besides possibly spaying and neutering being defined as treatment; a basic physical checkover, flea treatments - IF needed, all those would fall under "treatment."

Quote:
He eventually could face charges that include animal cruelty but has cooperated as authorities work to remove the dogs, treat them and send them to shelters.

In order to be facing charges for animal cruelty, at least a certain amount of them must have needed the services of a vet.

NO, it doesn't and all of them would need the services of a vet to be neutered.

Any way you slice it, no one needs that many animals to care for

And which one of us should be making the decision as to how many animals someone might need. There are individuals on this forum who do not even need one animal in the opinion of some of us; while others cheerlead and support their decision to go right ahead.

and it doesn't matter how big the quantity of workers.

So the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary shouldn't exist?

I wonder how the ASPCA would view this guy with his Noah's ark.

They'd tout the same party line as the HSUS.

Nothing wrong with breeding as none of us would have dogs if it wasn't for the breeder.

Not purebred ones anyway.

I just have a problem with a single source having the quantity indicated. He was running a tremendous puppy mill-plain and simple.

Someone who breeds even a single litter can be called a puppy mill. MA tried to pass legislation that someone who bred one litter must register as a commercial breeder.

Debbie

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

Well Debbie I am confused. First of all, I heard about this from Chip's Uncle Jim and was curious so I did a google and that article is the one that I found. I thought it would be an interesting read for people on this forum as we are all opposed to puppy mills (or I thought we were) I understand that you are not happy with all that is going on in the dog world but you can't straddle the fence so to speak. You are either for or against puppy mills and either happy or sad that they are broken up. Maybe I am reading to much into this but it seems that you and Peggy are defending this man when in other threads you and Peggy are against people that breed for profit or are not involved in the showring or don't strictly breed to improve the breed and according to breed standard. I guess I just don't get it. Please clarify because I am getting the impression that you are so against the people that enforced this law that you are overlooking the crime and I don't mean any disrespect to you so please don't take it that way. I just need clarification to where you are coming from with this.

Bonnie, it's like the right to free speech. I may not like or agree with something someone says but I defend their right to say it.

I don't agree with this man breeding these dogs for profit. I don't like or agree with someone running a puppy mill, but I defend their right to breed.

I do not think someone should have this many dogs and be breeding just for profit, but I also do not think he should be run out of town on a rail. At least this place was clean and the dogs taken care of. There have been much worse places that have been "raided" and shut down. (And with very good reason.)

And yes, I am anti-animal rights. Very strongly so. And yes, I disagree with their tatics. Why, because next week it could be me, or Debbie, or the breeder of your dogs they go after. Not because we're actually doing anything wrong, but because we have more than two dogs and they're intact.

So yes, it may sound like we're stradding the fence, and it bothers me to have to sound like I'm defending this guy. But my rights as a dog owner and BREEDER are at stake too. And I know the agenda behind this raid and the people who are doing it. That is what scares me.

Peggy

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Peggy, You might be barking up the wrong tree in this. The bare facts speak for themselves. The authorities have been too kind. It is not a matter of getting caught out - it is the act that matters. The perpretator has had 1 to1000 dogs too many.

Michael, I am not barking up any tree. I disagree with his numbers and that he was (and still is) breeding for profit. But I defend his right to own and breed dogs. If he can't then I won't be able to either. When they make laws to shut him down they will affect the hobby breeders too and then there will be no more purebred dogs in this country. I would hate to see the majority of purebreds being imported from Mexico. (Yes, I know there are other countries, but the majority of Americans won't think to import from NZ or other countries when they can get them cheaper and sooner from Mexico.) And yes,there are already dogs being brought into the US from Mexico and being sold. And yes, they come from puppy mills that are not even as regulated as the ones in the US.

So shutting down the puppy mills here is not realistic. As Debbie said there are people reputable breeders won't sell to. As long as that is the way things are there will be a market for puppy mill puppies.

These dogs were not abused or in ill health, so IMO, I don't see why he shouldn't own dogs. I don't think he should be breeding but that's not my call to make.

Peggy

[Philbiker]

Here's another article on the raid, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Relevant quotes:

The dogs taken from Horton's Pups appear to be in pretty good shape, said Carroll County Administrator Gary Larrowe. However, he said, the Hillsville kennel was not licensed to keep so many animals.

"He has been very, very cooperative, exceptionally cooperative," Larrowe said. "He wants to take care of the animals."

Larrowe said the problem at Horton's Pups was one of scale, not treatment: "It's really about the numbers as much as anything."

I think that it's good that Horton's Pups was busted for having too many dogs for their licensing. However, I think it's deplorable that an operation which appears to be a good example of a responsible and conciencious breeding business is being portrayed as a "puppy mill". They should go after the real puppy mills, where animals are cruelly treated not make a big public example of someone doing good work because of a technicality.

While this guy is taking a huge financial and PR hit the real puppy mills contrinue to thrive. And people reading these articles about a "puppy mill" where the animals were in good condition and the owner is bending over backwards to be cooperative are not going to have a real understanding of the horrors of a real puppy mill.

Tucker and Newman agree.

[Dillydoodle]

I am shocked and disgusted that there are people actually supporting this guy and have no care or concern for the poor animals that were taken from this man... and worse the sad 200 that have to stay in this man's care. First off, it is sad to me that there are breeders here who care more for the right to breed than the kind of life that an animal might have... so you are anti animal rights, you would rather that you have any jerk have the right to produce thousands of animals going into a saturated market place of unwanted animals rather than caring about the individual dogs.

As for someone actually saying the dogs only needed baths... well i find that hard to believe and more importantly what about their EMOTIONAL health or becuase they are dogs they don't have emotions?

Interesting that there are people who say they love dogs and yet their actions show something different.

Emilie

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

Well Debbie I am confused.

I can understand that. Pretty much I'm surprised nothing was mentioned about this last week, this is last week's news.

Breeding animals is a legal activity in the majority of this country and for me or Peggy or Chip, Dale & Bubba's breeder to continue to bring corgi puppies into this world for the pleasure of ourselves and others, then we want it to stay that way.

When anyone asks what to look for in a breeder, then I am going to tell them what to look for in a responsible breeder. But as I said earlier, responsible breeders cannot fill the demand for purebred puppies or dogs. Reality is there is a niche in the pet market for the Mr. Horton's and the horsey breeders who breed corgis for barn accessories and pocket cash at horse shows and the casual/kitchen breeder who believes everyone needs a dog like their little Fluffy, or wants to make their money back on whatever they paid for Sparky, etc and so on. I may not condone their methods of breeding, nor will I send referrals their way; but I have to defend their rights to breed. Laws passed to supposedly deal with the Mr. Horton's hurt Peggy, Chip, Dale, & Bubba's breeder, and myself. You pass laws that limit the number of animals one can own and you cut the throats of rescues which take a large burden off of animal control and shelter services. You pass limit laws based on numbers alone and you lose good homes where shelter dogs or rescues can go.

Please clarify because I am getting the impression that you are so against the people that enforced this law that you are overlooking the crime

Had local authorities come in and enforced the law, I wouldn't have had a problem. That they didn't should raise some questions as to why they didn't and answer some questions as to conditions. Horton's operation had been in business for 20 years. He had employees, it couldn't have been a "secret" in the community (Hillsville isn't that big) and there were no complaints. Yet a week after HSUS does articles in USA Today about puppymills in VA, there is a raid and a bust. One thing to understand here is that HSUS is not about the best interest of any animal's welfare. So once you throw out the notion they care about animals and recognize their agenda as the largest animal rights group in the world, more might fall into place. Standard strategy for HSUS, create a crisis that doesn't exist - 1,000 puppy mills in the state of VA; find someone in violation of local laws and bust them - poster child - see "we" were right. Major fund raising campaign for HSUS and next January VA will be hit with all kinds of puppymill legislation, legislation that is not needed for had existing laws been enforced Mr. Horton's operation would not have gotten out of hand to the extent it was. The laws were/are on the books to deal with him. What starts in VA will then spread throughout the country, been there done that, got the t-shirts.

While a couple of us are being accused of not caring about the animals in this situation, that is not the reality at all. Those who carried out this confiscation need to be looked at with more scrutiny. Anyone remember HSUS' pleas for funds to take care of Michael Vick's dogs? Know how many HSUS had in its care? NOT ONE! Remember the millions HSUS raised for Katrina rescue efforts? Know how they were spent and how much went to the care of animals displaced by the hurricane? No? Neither does the state of Louisiana which now has HSUS under investigation for those missing funds. How many of you know that in 2002 HSUS was behind a move to effectively shut down home based rescue in the state of VA? That is the type of rescue Peggy and I do, where the dogs come into our homes, live as one of our own, are evaluated, health needs addressed, neutered and placed in homes appropriate for their needs. So before anyone dares to question my passion, commitment or caring about the well-being and welfare of any of these dogs, one better have spent some time in my shoes and cried the tears I have over a corgi I only held in my arms for about one hour.

and I don't mean any disrespect to you so please don't take it that way. I just need clarification to where you are coming from with this.

None taken from you Bonnie and I really do understand from where and how the confusion can be a part of this. There is a much larger picture than the 1.000 dogs confiscated. Very few on this forum have the experience of dealing with multiple dogs or volume of dogs. I can easily hit double digits of corgis in my house when it starts raining rescues (like it has in the past couple of weeks). Very few can understand the way a couple of litter of puppies can inflate numbers. And it seems not many are noticing when something wicked this way comes.

Debbie, who probably has still left things clear as mud

[glencorgi]

Now remember, the animal rights agenda is no animal use whatsoever by humans. That means we all need to be vegan, hemp wearing, pleather shoes and enjoying a symbiotic relationship with animals at a distance. HSUS is against factory farming, yet the restrictions they legislate into law make it impossible for small family farms to survive. Sow crates were an HSUS ballot initiative in FL. Put religious connotations aside, pay attention to the quotes of the animal rights activists in the below article.

Debbie


Speciesism and Rights for Animals | Christianpost.com
>
>Speciesism and Rights for Animals
>Of Pigs and People
>By
>Chuck Colson
>Christian Post Guest Columnist
>Tue, Nov. 13 2007 05:21 PM ET
>[-]Text[+]
>E-mail Print RSS More on Topic
>Five years ago, Florida voters amended their state constitution to guarantee the rights of a previously unprotected class: pregnant pigs. Specifically, the ballot initiative guaranteed pregnant sows "enough space within which to turn around."
>
>Now, treating animals humanely is a moral imperative, especially for Christians; treating them as if they somehow were equivalent to humans is not. And, increasingly, that is what we are doing.
>At the time of the initiative, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith noted that at, any given time, there are only 300 pregnant sows in the entire state. Of these, only a handful were not being provided the space required by the amendment.
>
>So, the initiative was not being sponsored to eliminate animal cruelty. Instead, its goal was to establish a legal and political precedent that would help redefine the relationship between people and animals-and, in this case, bestow constitutional rights on animals.
>
>The next big test for this campaign to turn animals into rights-bearing creatures is in California. There, animal-rights supporters are trying to get an initiative on the September 2008 ballot.
>
>This initiative would extend the "rights" granted to Florida sows to the rest of the barnyard. It would, in effect, give animals a right to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs.
>
>Again, Christians ought to oppose cruelty toward animals and ensure that animals, including those we eat, are treated humanely.
>
>But initiatives like this one and in Florida are not really about the humane treatment of animals-they are about blurring and eventually erasing the distinction between people and animals. They are about eradicating what animal-rights advocates call "speciesism."
>
>Princeton ethicist Peter Singer defines "speciesism" as "a prejudice" that favors "the interests of members of one's own species . . . against those members of other species." Singer regards "speciesism" as being the moral equivalent of racism.
>
>For Singer and company, the offense is not only that we treat animals badly-it is that we think that people are human and, thus, different than animals.
>
>Christians need to beware, as well. A letter from a friend told me of a group in his church praying for the healing of pets, even laying on hands. Some Christians, who rightly love their animals, begin to think of them as humans, members of the family.
>
>How far will the animal-rights movement go? Can you imagine pigs enjoying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Don't laugh. Social changes in postmodern America happen very quickly-especially when couched in the language of rights. How quickly, for example, did abortion go from being a crime to a right? Or the demand by gays for marriage?
>
>Worldviews matter. If you believe there is no God, then you believe there are no God-given rights. And to you, humans are indeed just one of many living accidents roaming the planet.
>
>But we know better. And we know better than to cast human rights before swine.

[MyPemCharlie]

I cannot see any defense of this guy having the right to breed the way he has been breeding. These 1080 dogs were housed in small cages in 4 outdoor buildings. Dogs left this way develop cage rage with accompanying mental health problems.

The news video clip attached shows the small cages, and also reports that many of these dogs have skin infections and dental problems.

Want to adopt? - News - inRich.com

I see a huge distinction between people having the right to breed any number of animals they wish which are treated normally, given appropriate health care, and socialized as part of the family versus sticking hundreds of animals in small cages for pure profit. That may not fall in the legal definition of cruelty to animals, but it seems very cruel to me.

[glencorgi]

Cage rage? Okay, all you folks who use crates to protect your corgis from getting into things while you are out, get ready to be accused of animal cruelty and abuse. I'm not making fun, not at all as limiting the number of hours an animal can be crated/caged (the two are interchangeable in this context) has already been introduced into proposed legislation in parts of the country. The use of crates/cages is likely to be the next tethering issue.

Debbie