15 Poor Dogs Found In Disgusting Conditions

21st February 2014

If people really cared about animals - credit checks would be done on potential purchasers first!

A couple who kept a pack of 15 dogs in their squalid council house which was caked in urine and faeces have avoided jail after claiming they suffered from 'animal hoarding'.

Unemployed Peter Higgins, 53, and Ann Warren, 38, kept the 'feral' hounds locked in cramped rooms inside their three-bedroom property in Tyldesley, near Wigan, Greater Manchester.

The inbred cross-breed terriers regularly fought each other and would rarely be separated.

The animals were so desperate to escape the dirty rooms that they scratched through the plaster of the walls, exposing the brickwork.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564621/Appalling-images-horrific-conditions-council-flat-FIFTEEN-dogs-forced-live-squalor-owners-avoided-jail-claiming-suffering-ANIMAL-HOARDING.html#ixzz2txSvUpaZ

Can you imagine that Andy?...credit checks for every would be customer at the local pound?...

There would not be many wee dogs getting a new home , as reality tells us that one does not need to have a barrel of cash to look after and love a pet,.

Credit checking people for pets would be a disaster.

Joy Division wrote:Can you imagine that Andy?...credit checks for every would be customer at the local pound?...

There would not be many wee dogs getting a new home , as reality tells us that one does not need to have a barrel of cash to look after and love a pet,.

Credit checking people for  pets would be a disaster.

Are we saying money is more important than an animals life JD?

Credit checks are done when applying for a loan, a mobile phone (in some circumstances), insurance and many other things.

It is very simple to do.

We owe it to the animals, surely?

What credit checks show is responsibility, not how much dosh somebody has.

Oh, and pets are not cheep! (cheep cheep)  ::-3:: 

Home checking as all good animal charities do, and checking for months after the animal has been placed, and most do as well, is far the better way.

As for the horrors who did this, vile, vile, vile, they should be locked in a room the same size and the key thrown away.

As a side issue, don't you ever work Andy?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Can you imagine that Andy?...credit checks for every would be customer at the local pound?...

There would not be many wee dogs getting a new home , as reality tells us that one does not need to have a barrel of cash to look after and love a pet,.

Credit checking people for  pets would be a disaster.

Are we saying money is more important than an animals life JD?

Credit checks are done when applying for a loan, a mobile phone (in some circumstances), insurance and many other things.

It is very simple to do.

We owe it to the animals, surely?

What credit checks show is responsibility, not how much dosh somebody has.

Oh, and pets are not cheep!  (cheep cheep)   ::-3:: 

..but what about the good caring people who have a history of bad debt Andy?, surely you're not saying that every person in debt would make bad pet owners?

Woof-woof  ::-3:: 

Sassy wrote:Home checking as all good animal charities do, and checking for months after the animal has been placed, and most do as well, is far the better way.

As for the horrors who did this, vile, vile, vile, they should be locked in a room the same size and the key thrown away.

As a side issue, don't you ever work Andy?

Given this more thought - how about potential owners having to buy in to a 12 month vet subscription?


As for your final question Sassy, yes, unfortunately I do.

Just not today then.

do we need a strict licensing system for animals??

Sassy wrote:Just not today then.

I'm sorry, am I causing you some headaches?

heavenly father wrote:do we need a strict licensing system for animals??

I think with larger animals, because of the costs they incur we need to do more - as I said I think credit checks would be a very simple thing to implement - a list of animals should be drawn up and they should be carried out.

Dogs are so expensive to keep over a lifetime, and the credit checks show responsibility and whether somebody could afford vet fees.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:Just not today then.

I'm sorry, am I causing you some headaches?

Why would you cause me anything. I think we need to keep an eye on the time you spend on here during the day, because I've got a feeling that if we did, it would give lie to your claim that you work.

BigAndy9 wrote:

heavenly father wrote:do we need a strict licensing system for animals??

I think with larger animals, because of the costs they incur we need to do more - as I said I think credit checks would be a very simple thing to implement - a list of animals should be drawn up and they should be carried out.

Dogs are so expensive to keep over a lifetime, and the credit checks show responsibility and whether somebody could afford vet fees.

we do have animal passports so it makes sense that they are listed as pets..

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I'm sorry, am I causing you some headaches?

Why would you cause me anything.   I think we need to keep an eye on the time you spend on here during the day, because I've got a feeling that if we did, it would give lie to your claim that you work.

lol

I'll be the first to admit it - it aint what some would call "work".

That's what you get for working with civil servants Sassy.

I do leave this computer every now and then you know - to make another brew etc...

BigAndy9 wrote:

heavenly father wrote:do we need a strict licensing system for animals??

I think with larger animals, because of the costs they incur we need to do more - as I said I think credit checks would be a very simple thing to implement - a list of animals should be drawn up and they should be carried out.

Dogs are so expensive to keep over a lifetime, and the credit checks show responsibility and whether somebody could afford vet fees.

Never heard of whole life pet insurance. Took out ours on our puppy when we got him. Providing we keep paying the monthly insurance, which isn't a terrible amount, he is covered for everything, always.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I think with larger animals, because of the costs they incur we need to do more - as I said I think credit checks would be a very simple thing to implement - a list of animals should be drawn up and they should be carried out.

Dogs are so expensive to keep over a lifetime, and the credit checks show responsibility and whether somebody could afford vet fees.

Never heard of whole life pet insurance.   Took out ours on our puppy when we got him.  Providing we keep paying the monthly insurance, which isn't a terrible amount, he is covered for everything, always.

I didn't mention whole life pet insurance.

?

Apologies, should have been ' Ever heard ....... '

Ah right ok. Well yes - that's a great idea and one I thought of but thought that may be too much of a burden for some.

But, would it be a good idea to force owners, when they purchase some animals, to take that out?

I'm sure if that were the case, prices may come down - some vets, insurers would come up with good deals.

I pay £10 a month, it's gone down because he hasn't had much wrong with him. I agree, if you buy or rescue a dog you should take out insurance, although I can't see the insurance companies bringing the cost down.

BigAndy9 wrote:Ah right ok.  Well yes - that's a great idea and one I thought of but thought that may be too much of a burden for some.

But, would it be a good idea to force owners, when they purchase some animals, to take that out?

I'm sure if that were the case, prices may come down - some vets, insurers would come up with good deals.

i was going to mention places like the blue cross for animal registration as it doesn't cost but i think you can only register two animals to a name.. :D 

I also think there should be a limit on cats and dogs (and other large animals) - unless you're a registered breeder.

Look at these benefits scroungers - 15 dogs - some lying there dead in full view of the other poor ones.

It wouldn't be difficult - a register, credit checks etc...

We owe it to the animals and we owe it to our neighbours!

Joy Division wrote:Can you imagine that Andy?...credit checks for every would be customer at the local pound?...

There would not be many wee dogs getting a new home , as reality tells us that one does not need to have a barrel of cash to look after and love a pet,.

Credit checking people for  pets would be a disaster.

They dont?

I would like to have a dog - however I cannot afford food, the regular preventative health treatments, and medical insurance for accidents and illness - hence I do not have a dog.

I have cats but I make sure I can afford the necessary cover.

The problem here, as I see it is - responsible owners are put off by costs.

Irresponsible people, of course, don't give two hoots and just jump straight in.

It is much the same as many other things in life.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Can you imagine that Andy?...credit checks for every would be customer at the local pound?...

There would not be many wee dogs getting a new home , as reality tells us that one does not need to have a barrel of cash to look after and love a pet,.

Credit checking people for  pets would be a disaster.

They dont?

I would like to have a dog - however I cannot afford food, the regular preventative health treatments, and medical insurance for accidents and illness - hence I do not have a dog.

I have cats but I make sure I can afford the necessary cover.

...then get rid of your car, sell it and you can buy a dog and the exercise will do you good. :D 

BigAndy9 wrote:The problem here, as I see it is - responsible owners are put off by costs.

Irresponsible people, of course, don't give two hoots and just jump straight in.

It is much the same as many other things in life.

that's always the way the sensible, law abiding people pay for the idiots.. :D 

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I think with larger animals, because of the costs they incur we need to do more - as I said I think credit checks would be a very simple thing to implement - a list of animals should be drawn up and they should be carried out.

Dogs are so expensive to keep over a lifetime, and the credit checks show responsibility and whether somebody could afford vet fees.

Never heard of whole life pet insurance.   Took out ours on our puppy when we got him.  Providing we keep paying the monthly insurance, which isn't a terrible amount, he is covered for everything, always.

But it can go up - I know people paying over £50 a month for older animals - and I know people who get pets that cannot afford the £15 a month whole life cover costs for a young animal.

BigAndy9 wrote:I also think there should be a limit on cats and dogs (and other large animals) - unless you're a registered breeder.

Look at these benefits scroungers - 15 dogs - some lying there dead in full view of the other poor ones.

It wouldn't be difficult - a register, credit checks etc...

We owe it to the animals and we owe it to our neighbours!

Everyone , wether millionaires, benefit claimants or normal working folk should have limits as to how many animals they can keep, for the animal's welfare obviously.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They dont?

I would like to have a dog - however I cannot afford food, the regular preventative health treatments, and medical insurance for accidents and illness - hence I do not have a dog.

I have cats but I make sure I can afford the necessary cover.

...then get rid of your car, sell it and you can buy a dog and the exercise will do you good. :D 

When did you qualify in a medical speciality and when did I give you permission to access my medical records?

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I also think there should be a limit on cats and dogs (and other large animals) - unless you're a registered breeder.

Look at these benefits scroungers - 15 dogs - some lying there dead in full view of the other poor ones.

It wouldn't be difficult - a register, credit checks etc...

We owe it to the animals and we owe it to our neighbours!

Everyone , wether millionaires, benefit claimants or normal working folk should have limits as to how many animals they can keep, for the animal's welfare obviously.

The animals welfare is what andy was talking about in the first place - if someone has one dog that they cannot afford insurance for they should not be allowed a second one.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:




...then get rid of your car, sell it and you can buy a dog and the exercise will do you good. :D 

When did you qualify in a medical speciality and when did I give you permission to access my medical records?

You're the one complaints you can't afford a dog, I'm just telling you that you have options.

Why complain then?

And let me assure you that exercise will do you the world of good, I dont need a medical qualification to tell you that, as I have split cord malformation and other severe complications of the spine like fused and missing bones It does me good.

To sit around doing nothing when you are physically capable will rot both the body and the mind.

I'd say 2 dogs per family and you must have pet insurance.

Any more than 2 dogs and you're looking at space problems and time problems - dogs need attention etc.

All of these things could be done - why aren't the authorities bothering to do anything?

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Everyone , wether millionaires, benefit claimants or normal working folk should have limits as to how many animals they can keep, for the animal's welfare obviously.

The animals welfare is what andy was talking about in the first place - if someone has one dog that they cannot afford insurance for they should not be allowed a second one.

What Andy proposed was to credit check people before buying an a pet.

That is what I replied to.

BigAndy9 wrote:I'd say 2 dogs per family and you must have pet insurance.

Any more than 2 dogs and you're looking at space problems and time problems - dogs need attention etc.

All of these things could be done - why aren't the authorities bothering to do anything?

It sounds about right to me Andy, Amy more dogs and there will be less love to go around so to speak.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

When did you qualify in a medical speciality and when did I give you permission to access my medical records?

You're the one complaints you can't afford a dog, I'm just telling you that you have options.

Why complain then?

And let me assure you that exercise will do you the world of good, I dont need a medical qualification to tell you that, as  I have split cord malformation and other  severe complications of the spine like fused and missing bones It does me good.

To sit around doing nothing when you are physically  capable will rot both the body and the mind.

Where was I complaining? I was explaining how millions of responsible people make decisions about animal ownership based on whether they can afford it or not.

You can assure me all you like - you do not have fibro, and are not qualified in fibro and are therefore in danger of giving advice that can be downright dangerous not to mention making assumptions about what I do and do not do. I am not going to presume to tell you that visiting a chiropractor and getting a certain type of mattress and not doing certain types of activity will do you good - because your problem is different from my problem and what is good for me probably runs a risk of paralysing you for life.

So take it from me that I manage my condition as best as I can with help and support from other qualified people who know me and know from experience what does and does not work for me. One of the biggest dangers with fibro is over exercising - which can be as simple as walking half a mile when tired after a quarter of a mile. It is a danger because it can result in loosing function further - this condition can and does leave people bed bound.

What you seem unable to grasp is that a rotting mind and body means becoming incapable. One of the reasons I ended up where I am is because when being very active I started getting tired and suffering pain I decided I was unfit and needed to do more so please do not lecture me on doing more as for me that is not a good thing - it took the professionals a long time to get me to see I needed to do less and anyone truly supportive of me does not try to sabotage that by putting me on another guilt trip about what I ought to be doing.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The animals welfare is what andy was talking about in the first place - if someone has one dog that they cannot afford insurance for they should not be allowed a second one.

What Andy proposed was to credit check people before buying an a pet.

That is what I replied to.

What exactly is wrong with that? When you take out a loan they do a credit check to make sure you can afford the repayments. Why not when someone wants an animal do a credit check to make sure they can afford the bills that come with that animal? What is wrong with making sure someone can afford to pay a vet before letting them take an animal that may need medical care?

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I'd say 2 dogs per family and you must have pet insurance.

Any more than 2 dogs and you're looking at space problems and time problems - dogs need attention etc.

All of these things could be done - why aren't the authorities bothering to do anything?

It sounds about right to me Andy, Amy more dogs and there will be less love to go around so to speak.

Yeah cause love is a finite resource like a pie isnt it? Do you tell people they should only have 2 children because other wise there is less love to go around?

It is possible to have multiple dogs and meet all their needs - so long as someone has the money to provide food and medical care, and is aware of the needs and how they can be met.