Do you suppose you and I were twin sisters separated at birth? I enjoyed your post. I would be willing to stand side by side with you on many issues. I hope you and your good dogs have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend!

That's interesting, brain, about the dogs not being puppies. It makes me wonder where on earth Dr. Briskey kept them all -- since KOMO kept harping on how small his office and work area were. Your last 2 sentences are one of the big reasons I write in to these forums.Thanks to all the misinformation coming out of PETA and other anti-pet groups, people DO tend to think that anyone who breeds good quality dogs is the same as a puppy mill. As I imagine you know, PETA's goal is the complete extinction of all companion animals. Attacking everyone who breeds problem free, enjoyable animals is part of that plan. It is SO important to get people to understand that indiscriminate breeding is a bad thing, but careful breeding to produce healthy, good tempered dogs is vital. Also, breeders stay in touch with people who buy their dogs and provide support and wisdom if problems arise. If there are unsolvable problems, the breeder takes the dog back. Dogs that come from breeders do not end up in shelters. (I am guessing you know all this, brain, I write it in hopes of educating others who might read this post.) Meanwhile, your remark about being there when pups come to the vet for exams further exonerates the lady with the 13 dogs. A puppy mill does not take puppies to the vet for final exams before they head off to their forever homes.

Does this story make you want Mike McGinn to NOT be mayor of your city? Join the "Recall Mayor Mike McGinn" facebook page and help find a way to have him recalled.

I'm with you, grlgiraffe. I live a LONG way from Dr. Briskey. However, about 15 years ago, I owned a sheep that was having physical problems. A friend, who lived in Graham, said, "Call Dr. Briskey, he knows everything." I did call Dr. Briskey. Even though he didn't know me and it was unlikely that I would ever come to him and pay him to care for my animals, he was willing to spend his time on the phone telling me what I needed to know to make my sheep safe and comfortable. I was impressed with the man. I add this comment to the forum as further evidence that he is not some unknown, reclusive quack, but rather a veterinary practioner known throughout this area.

Well, keepwaiting, you got the part about puppy mill owners not taking dogs to a legitimate vet correct -- they don't.That would be one indication that the lady with 13 (not 15) dogs was not a puppy mill operator. The definition of a puppy mill is a dog breeding operation that breeds dogs indiscriminately without any research into hereditary medical conditions, etc. Dogs are bred over and over as often as possible until they are physically unable to breed. Puppies are sold to anyone, anywhere with no thought of their future welfare. The motive for all of this is money. Clearly the lady was no puppy mill owner. Thirteen puppies could be the result of as few as two litters. Any responsible and reputable dog breeder might have 2 litters at the same time. I'm guessing that she had them debarked because they were one of the breeds with a strong tendency toward excessive barking. Having them debarked indicates that she wanted them to have secure futures in loving homes and not end up in rescue because of "hobby barking" issues. A puppy mill owner wouldn't even THINK of that. A puppy mill owner rarely bothers with SHOTS. The clincher is the cost. Do you know what it costs to have ONE dog debarked? It varies from one vet to another, but it is a surgical procedure. No matter who does it, it has to be in at least the $100 range. Now consider that the lady had THIRTEEN dogs debarked. Clearly she is putting the welfare of the dogs ahead of her bottomline. The idea of a puppy mill operator going to that trouble and expense is laughable.

Debarking is "cruel"?! HOW do people come up with this stuff? Debarking is a simple, humane procedure that saves millions of canine lives. As some have stated here, debarking is a surgical procedure done painlessly while the dog is unconscious. The dog is still able to bark, but not at the same volume as before. The most common reason for having this done is because some breeds (like Shelties and Jack Russells) have a tendency to be "hobby barkers". They bark A LOT (especially when the owner isn't home) and it drives the neighbors crazy, especially if the owner lives in an apartment. When it comes down to a choice between ripping a dog from the family and home that he is strongly attached to emotionally to be re-homed to who knows who or lowering the volume of his bark, what do you think would be preferable to the dog? To the person who said that the bark of a debarked dog "sounds painful": I understand your thinking. The bark sounds breathy, sort of whispery. It reminds you of a human who has laryngitis or a very sore throat. However, that's just the way it sounds, the dog is not experiencing any more pain or discomfort than a human who had their tonsils removed years ago. For the person who demanded that owners train their dogs not to bark instead of debarking them, I say, "Good luck." Although I am all for EVERY dog being trained, this is one of the toughest training problems I can think of. Barking is a natural behavior and the EXCESSIVE barking often happens when the owner is not home. How exactly would you advise owners to do that training?

This is so sad, navidog. However, THANK YOU for telling the whole story. There is such a thing as genuine cruelty (such as the man and his son who shot their dog several times and left it to die tied to a tree) and it should be prosecuted. But, in my opinion, a great many "cruelty" cases are situations like this where a person's mental abilities have become impared by grief or mental illness. Yes, of course, it's horrible for the animals involved, but as several posters have pointed out, the man needs help, not punishment because he truly is not in control of the situation. No matter what punishment he was threatened with, it wouldn't have changed things. In my opinion, the answer to ending this type of tragedy is not restrictive legislation and draconian punishments, but rather people caring about each other. It took a long time for things in that poor man's house to reach this terrible state. The story states that he became a recluse, so of course, neighbors couldn't just intrude on his life, but as navidog said, there were signs that things weren't right with him. I don't mean to pass judgement on the neighbors, but it's tragic that they couldn't have found some person or compassionate group to check on him and get help for him before things became this bad. For example, if you live in Seattle, the Seattle Animal Shelter (that is the shelter operated by the city of Seattle, not the so-called Seattle Humane Society in Bellevue) often posts ads about "report animal cruelty". Even though this is not actually cruelty, it is a situation where animals are suffering. I don't know any of the SAS officers, but I have had interactions with SAS and my impression was that, in a situation such as this, they would deal kindly and compassionately with the animal owner. I have much experience with the Regional Animal Services of King County and I know many of their officers. I know they are very careful with mentally and emotionally fragile people while taking animals to safety.

I gave you thumbs up, Kboo. I'm sorry I misjudged you and I'm glad Chico interceded. We all need to stick together.

Fair enough, Chico. You are correct. I guess I have gotten a little hair trigger about this after having to protect my dogs from unleashed dogs on several occasions. The worst was one day when a woman with 2 dogs (on leash) approached my (on leash) dog and I in a public place. Her dogs were ill mannered and aggressive and they both lunged at my dog. Did the woman pull them back? She did not. "Go say, hi!" she called gaily as she DROPPED THEIR LEASHES ON THE GROUND. Suddenly I had two nasty, snapping beasts in my dog's face. My dog was capable of dismembering both of them in a few bites, but she did just what I expect her to do -- she looked up at me like, "Were you going to do something about this?" You bet I did. I dispensed with polite formalities and ordered the woman to "get your dogs out of my dog's face NOW". She began making little astonished faces and twittering about how her dogs don't bite (even though we had both just watched them snap at my dog's face). It's appalling to me that there is this kind of ignorance among dog owners. I'm sorry -- I digress -- back to your comment, Chico, yes, you are correct. My apologies to Kboo and archerynut for my assumptions regarding your future actions.

What a GOOD article -- especially that last paragraph. I would hazard a guess that a big contributor to the spike in dog bites is the attitude that dogs are "fur kids". The whole "pet parent" thing is a flight into unreality that causes all sorts of problems for both dogs and people. I realize that dogs really do act like human children in many ways, but they are NOT human children -- they are dogs. A dog has a much different view of life than a child and it is imperative that a dog owner understand that. A dog looks at his world with a narrow minded, kill or be killed view that would cause politically correct types to go into an agitated flutter. One quick example: If you take a child to the park to play and other children are there, you encourage your child to go say, hi, because you want them to make new friends and go play. When you take a dog to a park and there are other dogs there, he is not thinking, "Goody, new friends!" He is thinking, "Who are these intruders in MY park?!" -- and the other dogs are thinking the same about him. If you push your dog to "go say, hi", you are very likely setting him up for a fight. Dogs have their own complicated rules of etiquette for meeting strangers. I have personally watched hundreds of other big mistakes made by people who regard their dogs as "children who wear fur". Then you have stuff like the first two posters who plan to leave their dogs off leash because they seem less defensive that way. That indicates that the dog has no confidence in the owner. A dog that is confident that his owner is a pack leader who will handle any problem that arises does not feel that he has to be on the defensive. Furthermore, when dogs are off leash, you have ZERO control over what they are doing. They are very likely to end up in an altercation with ON LEASH dogs accompanied by responsible owners.