Stolen Texas LGDs turn up in Arkansas Rescue

[samssimonsays]

I am SO glad they were found and in good shape/condition! I look forward to seeing if they find anymore info out. It is kinda fishy about the whole chips coming back with no information deal since BOTH had one and the chances that BOTH would not register at the same time is slim to none... But, OH SO GLAD THEY ARE HOME! We too have had people stealing dogs in and around my area and sadly I think if anyone even so much as left their car door open to go steal a different dog, mine would end up in it with them thinking htey could go for a ride... However, if someone walked through our front door our Collie would most likely kill them if they meant harm. Our pyrenees.... sadly would invite them in for a hand to hold and a pet.

 

[Wisher1000]

I think that excuse is fishy, as well. My friend, Cee, called the rescue as soon as she located them on their website and left a message that said you have my dogs, they were stolen, and I am getting in my vehicle to come get them right now. The lady called the police and said she was afraid of this lady on the phone. The officer she called is a special animal investigator whom Cee had already contacted to tell him what was going on. He offered to meet her and go with her to get the dogs. I'm sure he wanted to prevent any altercation and also wanted to see the dogs' reaction to her. He told Cee that he didn't think those were her dogs (he knew and trusted the rescue owner) and that he would be there to make the determination. While on the seven hour drive, she got a phone call from him. Evidently, he was there, with a reader, and had found the chips and asked Cee for the numbers. She had and read off both and he confirmed that those matched. I wonder if he is still so sure that the rescue lady is trustworthy. When Cee asked her why she was trying to sell her dogs, the lady threw up her hands and said, "That's what I do!" I told Cee she should have said, "What? Sell stolen dogs? Is that WHAT YOU DO?!?"

I know that the chances of prosecuting any of this is slim. The crime was committed in Texas, the recovery was in Arkansas, and the dogs (supposedly) came from Tennessee. The only prosecution would have to be from the state of Arkansas for receiving stolen property, and I doubt that will happen since the dogs were returned, it was a Texas crime, and the property is "only a couple of dogs."

The moral of this story is, NEVER give up looking. I am ashamed to say that I would likely not have been as tenacious and persistent as my friend. For eight months, Cee never gave up hope of getting them back.

I will keep everyone posted.

 

[samssimonsays]

I am so so so happy that all has turned out. The lady just seemed fishy with that... Like she knew and tried to use her ties with the local law enforcement to make your friend look like a crazy. :/

 

[Bunnylady]

Wisher, you know me - I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here. I agree, it seems unlikely, but this woman may be guilty of nothing more than not trying hard enough to find out where those dogs had come from. A chip reader just gives you a number; you then have to enter it in the appropriate program (possibly writing it down first). People update those data bases periodically; some of the companies that keep them charge monthly fees to keep you in the system. Some chips get put into an animal, and for whatever reason their information never gets entered into any data base anywhere. I know I personally have a tendency to transpose numbers, so I know it's disgustingly easy to put the wrong number in and not know it. There are possibilities for human error all over the place, and not just by the lady at the rescue. I mean, look -the officer got the numbers from Cee, and compared them directly with what he saw on the reader. Almost all the potential for "operator error" and "computer glitches" had been eliminated when he checked.

And ask yourself this - if she knew the dogs were stolen, and knew they had chips, why did they still have the chips? There would always be the possibility that someone, somewhere, would pass a reader over the dog, find out it was stolen, and trace it back to her . . . . And even if it wasn't likely that she would face prosecution, the internet has made the world a very small place, and rescues depend on the public's goodwill. Some rescues are little more than hoarders by another name, but that doesn't sound like the case here - she could lose a lot if word like that got out.

And as for the phone call - Wisher, you're a cop. If I got a phone call from someone who said, "I just saw a picture on the Star-News website of a girl that was identified as your daughter, riding a horse that was identified as yours. Well, I'm telling you that horse was stolen from me 8 years ago, and I'm coming to get her just as fast as I can get my trailer hooked up and drive over there," what would you expect me to do? My "paper trail" on Sunny doesn't go back further than 2 owners; it's unlikely, but not impossible. Calling the authorities and saying, "I've got a nutcase coming over here making wild claims" seems like a very logical response to me.

 

[Wisher1000]

I hear you, Bunny, and agree, but there is more.

Looking back at some blog entries on the rescues website, we have found that she mentioned the dogs coming in from T E X A S. She knew where they came from, but said they were from Tennessee. She lied. She also posted them as up for adoption the next day. That doesn't lend one to believe she made any reasonable effort to find out if the dogs were strays, lost, or stolen. Especially since both were chipped and the investigator had no problem reading the chips and pulling up the owner information and the flag that the dogs were stolen.

Cee now recalls a neighbor that made a big deal about the incident where the dogs went missing and stressed that it was probably "just some kids, messing around." Then a couple of months later, the neighbor's brother stopped along the drive to ask about her luck in finding the dogs. When she started talking about all she was still doing to find them, he, too, said it was probably "just some kids, messing around." Does that seem like a coincidence? Or suspicious?

Cee now suspects her neighbors felt the dogs were not being treated well, having to stay outside, with the chickens, all the time (working) and may have taken them to find a new home for them. She also suspects that the brother, who lives out of town may be "the man from Tennessee." The Texas investigator is off this week for vacation but will be checking on all of that when he gets back next week.

Cee wants to prosecute and is considering suing for her out-of-pocket expenses that arose from her dogs being taken. That caused her a lot of trouble, expense, and worry. I think that is reasonable (and I am not a litigious person) since she lost many birds before getting replacement dogs and spent many hours looking and driving to try to find them and to go to get them. That alone was a seven hour trip.

Whomever took the dogs removed a cattle panel from a steel frame to get them out. They knew where and to whom the dogs belonged. They did it on purpose, and they caused her a lot of problems. I think if it can be proven who did it, they should be charged and should have to make it right.

 

[Bunnylady]

OK, now we have a story that doesn't add up. I mean, if she was anticipating a couple of dogs from Texas, and then says she had paperwork from Tennessee, that could be passed off with, "oh, I talk to lots of people; I just got confused about what this guy said." And of course, if she believed the dogs belonged to this man, then why wouldn't she put them up for adoption as soon as he left them with her? She'd have no reason not to. If she believed the dogs had been turned over to her by the owner, why would she even look for chips, let alone check to see what information there might be about them? But to know that the chips were there, and to say they got no information back when clearly, it worked for someone else - that is where the story falls apart. Why check if she believed the guy? And if she didn't believe the guy, why didn't she try harder?

If this is a story of a couple of "do-gooders," trying to save a couple of dogs from what they believe to be a miserable life, I can see why nobody had the nerve to remove those chips. But I agree, it sounds like this woman knows too much to try to make herself out to be innocent. I wonder how her "rescue" will fare if word gets around that she is fencing stolen animals?

I wish Cee well in her search for justice!

 

[Wisher1000]

I have never been involved in a rescue. I don't know the ins and outs of taking in dogs to rehome. But would it be standard procedure to just BELIEVE what "owners" claimed was the back story on their dog(s) with no verification or at least an attempt to verify? If not, how about getting a picture and ID on the person that surrenders the dog? I understand that to them "It's all about the dogs" and previous owners are all horrible people, but is there no protocol for AT LEAST checking chips?

I never thought about the chips being removed...I'm sure glad they weren't.

As prevalent as microchips are these days, I would think anyone who regularly works with dogs would be expected to verify ownership when the dog is accepted - especially a rescue. I would also think that shelters, vets, groomers, animal transport people, etc. would routinely scan the animal, document the number, look it up on the computer, and at least keep a record of the registered owner in the dog's file. Dogs DO get given away often, but the owner info should be updated or the new owner should at least be able to provide the previous owner's name and address. One of these dogs had been neutered! I HOPE that was done at a vet's office. Why wasn't the chip read then? If it had been read by anyone in the past eight months, that person would have known that the dog was reported stolen by the real owner.

 

[Bunnylady]

I remember a tale of a woman who bred some small breed - I think it was Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. She sent one of her dogs to someone in another state on a breeding loan. Tragically, the person she sent the dog to was murdered, and when she contacted the authorities to find out the status of her dog, they said all of the animals were being held as evidence, or something. Then she learned that the animals had all been rehomed through a rescue after being spayed or neutered. I don't remember how she learned that another breeder had a dog that might be her missing stud, but that's where it had gone - intact, of course. Her dog was chipped, but mysteriously, this dog had a small scar in the precise spot where the chip had been inserted, but gee, wow, quelle surprise - no chip. Unfortunately for the unscrupulous individuals involved, the woman had also had the dog DNA'd just before she sent him off, and when they tested the animal in question, it was a match. GOTCHA!

(Apparently, this dog's genetics were so important to this other breeder, they didn't mind the fact that any puppies he produced would only have half-papers. Not sure how they thought they'd get around that one.)

But chips aren't infallible. I've heard there are a lot of chips that are informational dead-ends out there, so one that leads nowhere is more likely to get shrugged off than get a "what the hey??!" reaction. I had a friend that had her dog tattooed on the inside of his (thinly haired) leg simply because the tattoo couldn't be missed or removed, and a chip could.

 

[Southern by choice]

My GSD is chipped because she couldn't go the Schutzhund trials without one.

I don't care for the chips for many reasons, some mentioned here already. My dogs and pups are DNA'd.

Although I am considering chips if I ever do another litter, for many reasons.

 

[Wisher1000]

Bunny, you likely know that there are lots of litters that shouldn't have papers, but do by the time they are sold. I got a letter from AKC in reference to a litter I was trying to register. I don't remember what the letter was about, but I know it was not any big deal. I called and told them that there was a problem. The problem was, I was not trying to register a litter. Someone had taken my name, address, and registration number off some registration papers for a dog I sold several years prior. The lady had forged my signature on the litter registration application. I did not get in any trouble, but my AKC membership was flagged and whenever I tried to get papers in my name, I had to go back and explain what had happened and who at AKC had investigated it.

I would definitely be interested in DNAing dogs. I hope that the cost eventually goes down so that it is more accessible to more people. The chips, however, provide a way to get information on the owner in case the dog is recovered. DNA can't tell you that. A tattoo is helpful in IDing a dog once the owner locates it, but useless to the person who finds it (unless, of course, the tattoo is the owner's phone number!)

We suggest that people collect DNA from their kids by swabbing inside the cheeks for cells and storing that swab for future analysis if needed. That would not be a bad idea for our dogs. All you have to do is use a Q-tip or a sterile swab if you can get one from your doctor. Just rub it firmly against the inside of the dog's cheek and let it dry in a paper bag, then transfer it to a labeled ziplock baggie once it is dry. It wouldn't hurt to put the dog's name on the stick with a pen in case it comes out of it's bag. Just keep the baggie in the dog's file and pray you never need it.