FRANKLIN, Maine — Last fall, the Warren family had two golden retrievers, Bella and Jake, that were considered integral members of a household which includes four young children.

Now the dogs have been placed with a new owner somewhere in New England after they took off from the Warrens’ yard in early November and failed to return.

The family made an effort to find the dogs, which they had licensed with the town, by posting information on Facebook, asking some of their neighbors on Taunton Drive and checking the websites of the Ark Animal Shelter and the SPCA in Trenton. In late November, they called the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth to find out if anyone had brought the dogs in and were told no one had. The family left their phone number in case anyone did.

But according to the Warrens, two days after their dogs ran out the door and went missing, a local animal control officer found them about two miles away and took them to the same Ellsworth clinic. From there, about a week later, they were taken to Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue in Hudson, Mass., which placed the dogs with a new family somewhere in New England. By the time the Warrens called the Ellsworth clinic, it was nearly two weeks after the dogs had been taken to Massachusetts.

The Warrens want to know where Bella and Jake are and want them returned. They have been told, however, that nothing can be done and that they will not get their dogs back.

“My kids are devastated,” Billie Jo Warren said Monday. “It was almost better not knowing what happened.”

Before they found out their dogs had been taken to Massachusetts, Warren said, they had come to believe the golden retrievers must have been shot and killed by a hunter. They recently saw in the Franklin town report that two golden retrievers on the loose had been picked up in Franklin in August 2011. The date was too early to have involved their dogs, but they talked to Animal Control Officer Marie Zwicker anyway and found out she had picked up two golden retrievers in Sullivan a few days after theirs ran off.

The dogs are both 9 years old, Warren said. They had Bella since she was a puppy and Jake since he was 5 years old. The dogs frequently accompanied the Warrens on outings such as hikes up nearby Schoodic Mountain and on all-terrain vehicle rides.

“Our dogs went everywhere with us. They were like our kids,” she said. “I just want to get my dogs back.”

The family said they previously had dealt with another animal control officer in Franklin, Sharon Raybourn, when another dog attacked their pigs a couple of years ago. Raybourn knows Bella and Jake, they said, and would have called them if she had picked up the dogs.

They said they did not know that Franklin had another animal control officer until they learned Zwicker was the one who picked up their dogs and took them to Ellsworth. Zwicker also is the animal control officer for the towns of Hancock, Sorrento, Sullivan and Trenton.

Warren and her husband, Roy Warren, said that Zwicker could have done more to find out who owned the two dogs. They said Monday that Franklin’s town clerk, Robert Fernald, keeps records on licensed dogs at his home. Had Zwicker checked with Fernald, she would have found that the Warrens were the owner of two golden retrievers whose appearance matched those of the dogs Zwicker had taken to the Ellsworth clinic.

“All she had to do was make a phone call,” Roy Warren said in the kitchen of the family home on Scallop Lane, which is located just a few hundred yards from the University of Maine aquaculture research facility on Taunton Bay.

On Monday night, the Warrens went to a Franklin selectmen’s meeting to discuss their concerns with local officials.

A few hours before the meeting the Warrens found out that Zwicker had picked up the dogs over the town line in Sullivan, near Track Road in Sullivan. Because Zwicker picked up the dogs in Sullivan, she was acting as that town’s animal control officer, not Franklin’s, selectmen told the Warrens.

Jeff Albee, with the support of fellow Selectman Shane Wallace, told the Warrens they would have to raise the matter with Sullivan officials. Franklin First Selectman Ian Staub was not at the meeting.

“That’s all we can do, I guess,” Albee told the couple.

Albee said after the meeting that he feels for the Warrens but he doesn’t think anyone did anything wrong.

“I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do,” Albee said.

Outside the Franklin town office, Zwicker acknowledged Monday evening that she did not make any inquiries, either in Franklin or in Sullivan, to try to find out who owned the dogs when she picked them up. The Warrens said they kept collars and identification tags on Bella and Jake, but Zwicker said when they were found Nov. 4 only one had a collar on and neither had ID tags or other identifying markers such as microchips or tattoos.

Zwicker said the way she dealt with the situation followed the letter of the law. If ownership of the dogs is known, she can take them back to their owners or to a clinic. If ownership of the dogs is not known and no one claims the dogs from the clinic within six days, the clinic then can claim ownership of the animals and dispose of them humanely, either through euthanasia or by giving them to another animal assistance agency.

Determining ownership of an animal often is difficult, if possible at all, when it does not have any specific identifying tags, tattoos or microchips, according to the animal control officer.

Zwicker said she can understand why the Warrens are upset at losing their pets but she cannot understand why they did not call the Small Animal Clinic sooner or why they did not call her at all.

“Everybody knows if they’re missing an animal they should call the animal control officer immediately and they should call the Small Animal Clinic,” Zwicker said. “Why would they wait?”

Zwicker said she checked who in Sullivan has licensed golden retrievers and found 10 names on the list. She did not call any of the names on Sullivan’s licensed dog owner list, which she said would have been too labor intensive, nor did she ask around the neighborhood where the dogs were found.

“If I have no idea who the dog belongs to,” Zwicker said, leaving the sentence unfinished as she shrugged.

She said it did not occur to her to check with the town of Franklin because the dogs were nearly two miles from the Franklin-Sullivan line. If she had called another town, it would have been Hancock because the Route 1 bridge that connects Sullivan and Hancock is not far from where she picked up the dogs, she said.

When asked what she would have done if she picked up the dogs in Franklin, where Bella and Jake were licensed, but then found a list of 10 golden retrievers there, Zwicker declined to speculate.

“It was a good judgment call at the time,” she said of taking the dogs to the Ellsworth clinic. “I followed the law. I try to do the best that I can for the animals.”

Sue Averill, kennel manager for Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue, said Monday that the dogs in question did not have microchips, tattoos or other identifying marks or tags on them when they were found. The dogs had not been neutered or spayed before arriving at the kennel in Massachusetts, she said.

Averill said Bella and Jake went unclaimed while they were held for 10 days at the animal clinic in Ellsworth before they were brought to Hudson, Mass.

If there is a question about whether the situation was handled properly by the animal control officer before the rescue group received the dogs, she said, that has to be sorted out between the Warrens and the town.

“If the dog is unclaimed, it becomes property of the town,” Averill said. “We take it at face value that they did their due diligence [before turning the dogs over to the rescue group].”

Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue will not divulge the name of the dogs’ new owner or where they live because of its confidentiality policy, she said.

Averill declined to comment about exactly when the dogs were placed with their new owner. She said that typically dogs that are spayed and neutered by the rescue group — as Bella and Jake were — are kept at the group’s kennel for two weeks before they are placed with new owners.

If the two dogs were picked up on Nov. 4, held at the Small Animal Clinic for approximately a week, and then held at the Hudson, Mass., kennel for two more weeks, Billie Jo Warren said it is possible they had not yet been placed with their new owner when she called the Small Animal Clinic on Nov. 23 to ask if anyone had brought in her dogs.

Attempts Tuesday to contact officials at Small Animal Clinic were unsuccessful.

The Warrens said they think their best hope for getting the dogs back is if the new owner reads about their plight and contacts them.

Follow BDN reporter Bill Trotter on Twitter at @billtrotter.

A news reporter in coastal Maine for more than 20 years, Bill Trotter writes about how the Atlantic Ocean and the state's iconic coastline help to shape the lives of coastal Maine residents and visitors....

Join the Conversation

427 Comments

  1. My goodness, why can’t common sense prevail and they contact the new owners? This is ridiculous. Clearly these dogs were well cared for. Just give them back.

    1. This makes the most sense instead of trying to blame everyone on earth, how about a possible direct solution?  I’m sure the new owners have no clue of the history of these dogs- who by the way are pretty darn lucky to have not only one, but TWO loving families to want them! And if a return doesn’t work: be happy for  the dogs, go to the shelter and rescue more loving, worthy dogs, just hoping like crazy to get 1/2 a chance at a loving home.

      1.  No one can care for your pets better then you!!! They have to give them back, It apparently was a great home….

        1.  It was’ apparently a good home’? The dogs ‘took off’, how did that happen? Was the yard fenced or had they been left unsupervised? Was anyone home at the time? They didn’t call the ACO every day asking about their dogs? Did they go to the clinic with photos in hand asking about their dogs? Did they call local vet hospitals in case the dogs had been hit by a car? Did they contact the Bangor Daily News THEN? It seems that the owners would like to put the blame anywhere other than where it belongs.

          1.  Those dogs should be back with their family…sounds to me like the animal control officer is playing Paul Blart Mall Cop.

          2.  Exactly not to mention they were not spayed or neutered. The owners are looking to put the blame on the people who rescued the dogs.

          3. No they are not! It was an accident! they are blaming nothing on the rescue but being rude and not returning call.  Getting your animals spayed or neutered is the owners choice not your or anyone elses. Rescue should do the right thing and contact the new owners. 

          4. I had a husky HELEN and I loved him dearly and treated him like a king.  He would get off the leash and run too.  I would chase him and catch him while crying and praying no one ran him over.  3 times in his 11 years.  He was well loved and never had a bad day.  But dogs do these things — they want to be free to run.  You have no clue.  So don’t you sit on your invisible perch and say these people did not give these dogs a good home, you are a coward. 

          5. I am sorry for the family, and we are only getting a newspaper article here, but what I want to know is exactly how hard did this family look?  It’s not sounding too hard by the story. Sorry if you all find it insensitive, but I am sort of with Helen on this one.  If one is missing their dog, there are daily phone calls, daily stops at ALL rescue shelters, animal clinics, posters, driving all over God’s green earth, as they say, and I would have found my dogs.  Hey, OK; post it on Facebook – that should do it.  It would seem these animals probably have wandered before or had issues staying in the yard(most don’t just “bolt” and never heard from again one time) so you have to make  more of an effort – keep identification on your dogs at all times – why was there no identification on the dogs and only one collar between the two?  My animals would have tags, collars, and probably the invisible fencing so that if they get off their leash, they stay in the yard.  If I lose my dog, I can only blame myself – my hope is that this family made every effort to find them; that there was more than a couple of phonecalls and a Facebook posting.

          6. It is apparent by your comment “my animals WOULD HAVE (instead of do have) tags, collars, ……….. that you do not have a dog.  

          7. You’re right – he’s dead – sorry I haven’t gone out and got a new one so quickly – our pets are like family, and maybe it’s easy to replace for you, but not us.  Sorry to disappoint.

          8.  Helen,sometimes dogs get loose. It happens. it is not the fault of the owners. Dogs can slip their collars, dig under fences, run through a door when it is opened by an owner going outside….THINGS HAPPEN! Get off your high horse, and realize that just because a dog get loose, it is not trying to escape from bad things. Dogs like to get exercise, and they don’t realize that they are doing something wrong. I owned a husky for years, and when she escaped, it was pointless to try to catch her, she just loved to run, she always came back, but if I did try to catch her, she thought we were playing a game. My current dog loves to dig…I come home to holes around her fence every night, it doesn’t mean that she is in an abusive home, actually just the opposite, she is very loved and very spoiled, it it just in her nature to dig. These people obviously love their dogs as they love their children….most dog owners do. These are obviously people who would just like their dogs back. Thats not asking to much is it?

          9. Uh, find local female dogs in heat if it’s an intact male Goldie who took off. They do things like that! Then try a school yard or playground or water area and read the SECRET LIFE OF DOGS and how they really don’t run into traffic….although cruising local roads looking for your dead goldie is a terrifying alternative. 

          10. Sad story here. Lots of lessons to be learned.

            Perhaps if this family had done a quicker and more aggressive search (i.e., flyers in the neighborhood, in local stores, and immediate phone calls and flyers distributed to every law enforcement, vet clinic, and shelter in the area) they might have been reunited with the dogs. Also helps to have ID on the dogs at all times — microchips, tattoos, etc. My brother wrote his phone number directly on his dog’s collar in case she ever got loose and her tags came off. Of course that has not happened; they have a fenced in yard and she is either on leash or voice command whenever she isn’t at home.

            And for heaven’s sake, spay and neuter your pets. They are less likely to wander off when their hormones are not raging. It boggles my mind when I hear about people who don’t spay/neuter.

            That said, seems as though whoever found them should have known they were someone’s pets and might have tried a little harder to find the owners, but I have no idea what their workload might have been.

            We once had a dog show up in our yard. Wicked nervous fella, he would not let us get close enough to look at his tags, but he wouldn’t leave our deck. So I did the only thing I could think of and called the cops. Told them I did not want to complain, but asked if anyone in the area had reported losing a dog. Sure enough, someone up the road had already called — the dog had not been missing more than a couple hours. I called the guy, he drove down, man and best friend reunited, happy ending.

          11.  don’t be a hater, its apparent you  have not had a love for animals, and may never have owned one…stick to what you know(which isn’t much)…seem like your the one doing the blaming …and do you know for a fact that they didn’t do all you mentioned and more? Your just assuming, because your hell bent on putting the blame on the original owners….

      1. The rescue group should do the right thing and contact the owners themselves, telling them of the situation and giving them the option of returning the dogs. 

        1.  That is a fair option given their privacy policies. That would in no way expose who they are in case they do not want to return the dogs. I hope they will understand though and return them.

          1. They should not have an option to not return the dogs, it was an error on the part of the rescue center and the dogs are a part of a family who is suffering tremendously at the loss of their babies. Imagine those four children…what kind of twisted individual would opt NOT to return the dogs if they knew the situation…?

          2. Right, except the animal shelter was the legal owner when the dogs were placed with the rescue organization.  And there’s no fault with the current owner who adopted the dogs from the rescue group.

          3.  no one cares about fault;  they just want their dogs back  and to avoid this  happening again.  Clearly there needs to be a better procedure in place 

          4. Yes, fault doesn’t mean much now on the question of whether the Warrens’ can have the dogs, because they’re not the Warrens’ dogs anymore. By operation of Maine law, the Warrens’ rights were terminated.  The dogs have new owners. 

            But I agree that there should be better procedures.  Through a combination of prior owners’ and ACO’s fault, the situation was created that brought 7 M.R.S.A. sec. 3913,4 into play.   It’s a sad case, ameliorated I hope by good adoptive home(s).

          5.  People are NOT going to see it that way, bottom line. The rescue should contact the ” new ” owners and explain what has happened. If not, they will get bad press, and their donations will slow.

          6. you are do out of touch it’s incredible… so you should really just take it down a notch .. go sweep the barn or something till  this thing gets resolved.. you are not helping anyone here . go away

          7. Sorry but you are out of touch.  The town had possession and legal ownership under the law at the time they brought the dogs to the rescue group.  Like it or not, that is the way the law is written.  So the rescue group is not to blame here.

          8. A family who has settled in at Christmas time with a dog or both dogs. Sad but these dogs were probably “rescued” right in December and Santa probably brought them into someone’s home. Some little boy probably got his dog for Christmas given the time of year that these dogs were rescued. So sad for everyone involved.

        2. I agree, the new owners would probably be horrified that these two already have a loving home somewhere!

        3. That would make too much sense! *eye roll* 

          Maybe everyone involved could have done more to find the dogs but, regardless of how the dogs came to be in a new home, and without blaming anyone, the right thing to do would be for the shelter that re-homed the dogs to call the new owners, explain the situation, and ask if they could find it in their hearts to return Bella & Jake to the Warrens.  Why won’t they do that?

      2. If the rescue group won’t divulge the name, a lawyer can force it out of them, I’ll bet.  I don’t normally endorse suing when reasonable persuasion works, but this looks like a case for lawyers.

        1. Oh my god people!  The Rescue group saved the lives of these dogs!!!  Without the rescue group, these dogs probably would have been euthanized!

          1. Dogs in Maine are not put down as a matter of shelter procedure, like many others states. In fact, Maine is a net receiver of rescue dogs from other states that have kill policies in place.

          2. Healthy, calm, non-violent dogs, that are well-socialized? I highly doubt these dogs would have been put down. Some effort could have been taken to find the owners before wisking them away out-of-state. There is no excuse for the animal control officer not checking dog licenses first. The rescue’s website touts their recent 5,000 golden retriever placement, I smell something funny here.

            I coach rec soccer for elementary school kids, which involves no compensation and contacting 20 or more families on a near weekly basis during the season. Surely a paid officer of the town can take the 15 or so minutes it would have taken to check around.

          3.  The vet office in Ellsworth- where the ” shelter” is – that these dogs were taken, would definitely have put these dogs down. They wouldn’t have wasted any time  either.

          4. Not these kind of dogs. These are worth money to a shelter.Shelters only put down a dog as a very last resort.  A dog that is untamed, ugly, bites, barks constantly, ect. But a Namebrand Dog is never put down, they will transfer him or her first. I have a shelter next door and they are small but dogs aren’t put down and even pocketbook dogs that bite are usually not put down if they can find an owner and proper fit. I know a lady that adopted a dog and she said, he doesn’t bite me.  Obviously pit bulls that bite are put down. Those that have never bitten they place in homes without children is usually the golden rule, that was my understanding when my 20 year old was inquiring about one. Mixed breed pit bulls anyone can adopt. Anything larger then a pocketbook dog that bites they probably put down would be my guess, but healthy trainable dogs they don’t put down next door. I know this because my daughter volunteered there and I had to go with her and we see the same dogs there day after day. Then we would see them getting adopted out. Not checking out. They did send dogs to rescues as well.

            The shelter next to me doesn’t even ever want to put down a cat. The exception to the rule is wild barn cats or wild cats in general that come in sick. Because they have such an overwhelming amount of cats they don’t usually try to nurse them back to health. They are hard to tame and they just have too many cats.

          5. In addition, these dogs were found without ID tags even though the owners state they were licensed with the town. No ID, no microchip, how well were they identified? Apparently not well. They are fortunate they were not shot by a nasty property owner and perhaps next time will keep ID tags on their dogs. It’s required to be on them (the town license) so dogs CAN be identified. No one should have to go to huge lengths to guess their identity if the owners choose to leave the tags off.

          6. According to the owner, they indeed did have tags on. It just seems too convenient for a rescue that only does golden retrievers. See the BDN Facebook page for comments directly from the owner.

          7.  yes there are not enough dogs in shelters, now the rescues are looking to steal dogs,  dont be dumb, the owners failed to protect their dogs and now they have new homes.

          8. It is the animal control officers job to contact people with licensed dogs meeting the description. Apparently she found that too “labor intensive”, so it was far easier for her to send the dogs to a rescue in MA rather than spend a little time looking for the owners? I don’t buy it and I think someone hired by the town is there to help their fellow townspeople – not do everything they can to avoid helping them. I am sure it is not a volunteer position. I would like to know, what the compensation is for taking a dog to a shelter versus finding the owner. Is it worth more to “deal with a stray” than reunite with owners? I don’t know the answer, but it would be a good question to ask in this case.

          9. I think you’re right.  if you look at the photo at the top of the article, I swear the dog on the right is not wearing its collar, but the one on the left is…if that’s the case, then the owners can’t say they always have their collars on.  I can’t believe people think the control officer took them off.  Simply look at the photo someone provided…I don’t see a collar…

          10. It happens, especially with older dogs that may be harder to place. Everyone wants young dogs. Very few people want to adopt old dogs.

          11. Very likely.  Apparently you have not had a family member who worked at a landfill or your local dump – there are dumps of animal carcases weekly from many large shelters – purebreeds and all … especially being 9 years old – people aren’t in favor usually of adopting old animals, usually.

          12. these dogs had a home , this dog officer is trying to make a name for herself …..she stole them .

            she comes to my house all the time …..she never has her info right has wrongly accused my dogs of being at large several times.

          13. They did not have to be sent there. There are many many places these dogs could have gone besides Mass.

        2. The rescue group has a confidentiality policy to protect the identity of the new owner.  The dogs were at large, the Animal Control Officer took custody of them and delivered them to a shelter, and the shelter became the owner of the dogs six days after they were placed there.  The shelter then placed the dogs with an out-of-state rescue group, and the rescue group placed the dogs with a new family. 

          Could the ACO have done more to identify the dogs owners? Yes.  Should the Warrens have kept their dogs from running at large and done more to find them? Yes.  But those things are beside the point now because the dogs have new owners.

          Let’s say the Warrens agree that this is a case for lawyers.  They might find a lawyer who would sue the rescue group,  but they would have to do it in Massachusetts.  Because the animal shelter in Maine was the owner of the dogs under 7 M.R.S.A sec. 3913,4 when the dogs were placed with the rescue group, it’s not clear that a suit by the Warrens would even survive a motion to dismiss on the grounds of their lack of standing.  And even if it did, it’s doubtful that the Massachusetts court would require the rescue group to disclose the new owner’s identity, given the group’s confidentiality policy and strong policy reasons in favor of it.

          But let’s just say, hypothetically, that the Warrens were lucky.  They sue, they prevail in court, and they find out who the new owners are.  What can they do then if the new owners don’t want to give up the dogs?  On what possible grounds and legal theory could the new owners be ordered to give up their dogs?  I can’t think of any, can you?  I think it’s extremely unlikely that the court will require them to give up their dogs and return them to the Warrens.

          So I would say this is not a case for lawyers and the courts.  It would be a waste of time and money.

        3. The rescue group is not to blame….that Zwicker is. Come on … too labor intensive to make a few calls? I would hope Sullivan is taking a look at this.  We should be emailing the Town of Sullivan to take a look at the way their ACO does business. And The Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth is terrible . Anyone living in the area has heard horror stories about them.

      1. these dogs were well cared for!! they wernt allowed to run! it was an accident. you are a heartless person Desi. get the details!!

    2. Unfortunately, the new owners may have paid a heavy price for the dogs. Rescue isn’t cheap. We rescued an unpopular breed a few years back and it cost us $200.  This is assuming someone has both dogs. Rescue doesn’t care so much if they go together, just that they both get homes. This was also at Christmas time so a child may have recieved this dog for Christmas or worst yet a grown up child. Its been months now and people are human we fall in love quickly.  Of course the dogs are certainly still looking for their first family, they don’t forget.  Sad situation all the way around. We hate seeing this happen to a pair of dogs, unfortunately I watch this happen to children everyday. Dislocated from one home and asked to resettle to another. What seems easy to settle is a matter of the heart.

      1. The potential price for the new owners would be even higher if their identities were disclosed against their wishes and they had to defend a court action for the return of the dogs.

      2. You are making general statements.  Have you ever worked in rescue?  Do you know the number of dogs that come into rescue every week?  Do you know for a fact that rescue groups don’t care if the dogs go together? 

        And you are right, rescue is NOT cheap.  But neither is taking care of the animals that come into rescue.  Let’s see, vet bills, food, vaccines (since you have no history on the animal), surgery if needed (frequently it is), etc., etc.  So to pay $200 for a dog that has been totally vetted . . . pretty damn cheap.

    3. Okay, wanna bet somebody made some money here? 
       
       Two beautiful Golden Retrievers already grown and clearly well taken care of – – bet they got $2000 or more from those people in Massachusetts by advertising them as “strays” or “rescues.”
       
      Bet you anything that’s what happened – especially because they’re saying, “nothing anyone can do.”  That’s a lie and they know it. 
       
      Goldens are in great demand because they are wonderful dogs.  I have a 10-year old female who still thinks she’s a puppy.  Loves life, and so makes me do so, too. 

      Yessir, money changed hands here, all right.   

      1. Quite the conspiracy theory you have going there!  Why don’t you try volunteering at a shelter or rescue group to see what actually goes on before you start throwing accusations that they are making money “selling” goldens!

    4. My limited experience with YGRR is that they run a business pure and simple. They do not do what they do because they love Goldens, they are in it for the money. So do expect any compassion from them. We have had Goldens for the last 14 years so I know a little about them and what they mean to a family and what THEIR family means to them. These 2 dogs would be much better served being reunited with their family, rather than a new family no matter how caring they might be. These were clearly well cared for dogs (just look at the top photo).
      YGRR should do the right thing and make the adoptive families aware of the situation. YGRR could easily waive the adoption fees for these two caring families if they allow the dogs to be reunited with their original family and decide to adopt in the future.

  2. If the Warrens can find the actual location of their pets and provide proof of ownership a simple civil suit is all that is required to regain custody of their property. 

    1. Once the dogs time was up and the owners didn’t pick them up, the article says they became the town’s dogs. So the people lost ownership of the dogs. They would have to prove that there was some sort of conspiracy that prevented them from getting their dogs back.

  3. I do not disagree with the points raised by justsaynotogovt, but at the same time, the dogs were running loose, they were of an advanced age but had not been spayed or neutered, they did not have any identifying features (tattoo or microchip) and it is questionable if they had collars and tags. It sounds like there is plenty of blame to go around.

    1. As a dog lover I have to agree with you. Why they never even called the local town office to see who was in charge of animal control is beyond me, it would have been my very first phone call.

      1. Good point! And then there’s the picture of the four year old child on the back of what-would-have-been a seven year old golden retriever. That’s really good for a dog!

        1. Seriously?  That dog is HUGE, compared to the kid.  If your body was too broken at 28 years old to give a 4 year old a piggyback ride, then you need to work out or something.  

          This is getting to the point of nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.  Go nit-pick elsewhere.

        2. these dogs are very healthy. They do not look or act elderly. Im sure she wasnt riding him lol. shes not a very heavy child and a man was holding her hands so she didnt have all the weight on him. looks to me like he liked the attention. Wow!! go see if u can pick anything else apart with the pics. oh wait should an elderly dog be  climbing Schoodic Mountain?????  find something else to pick apart!!

          1. Ask your vet if it’s a good idea to let a four year old ride on a dog’s back. Unless, of course, you are one.

            But don’t take my word on the matter; per Cornell University Veterinarian Sarah Bassman: “Children riding on the back of their family dog is very dangerous for the animal, and the child, even if you have one of the giant breeds as your family pet. The muscles in a dog’s back are not strong enough and not designed to carry a passenger and could be damaged by this activity. We worry about muscle sprain and strain, vertebral subluxation, and disc-related problems. Lesser sprains and strains may need to be treated with pain medications or physical therapy while serious spinal injuries could lead to paralysis which may or may not be able to be surgically repaired.”

            I am not defending the response of town officials. I am merely saying that all of us who own pets have the moral responsibility to act in our pet’s best interests. They are animals, and are incapable of making the rationale decisions necessary to preserve their own health. Better choices could have been made by all the involved parties.

          2. Wow, my old mixed breed loved it. She didn’t give rides and she knew where to hide when she got sick of the attention. I had a daycare then the restaurant. The kids crawled on her sat on her back right up until she got too old. We actually laid her away at 14 years old because we were afraid she would bite a child in pain at the restaurant. We had seen this happen with an elderly gentlemens dog when a 2 year old came up and patted his dogs ears and bit him in the face. Dog must have had earmites or something? Child pulled? Man said his old elderly dog had never bitten anyone, old calm sheep dog, that my kids had always played with. Children were still climbing on my old dog and she was hiding more and more, good for her to know enough to go to her bed. We also had to lift her in and out of the car as her back legs didn’t work anymore. She was so patient with children, but we were afraid her hips would lock and she wouldn’t be able to escape them, pinning her there with them, making for a dangerous situation. After witnessing what had happened with the old sheepdog, we laid her down. Loosing your dog is like loosing your child. We haven’t gotten another, because there won’t be another like her.

          3. you let children harrass your old dog so much she had to hide away and then decided that instead of giving her have a safe quiet place away from the kids, you would euthanize her. I think you actualy just made m5aussies argument for her. 

    2. If you own a dog, micro chip it!! Collars and tags fall off or can be taken off. Micro chipped dogs have a permanent ID. I lost my dog when someone left a back gate open. We looked everywhere and called every agency within the first couple of hours. 4 days later I get a call from a shelter and he had been found 25 miles away. He was hungry and tired a walked up to someone’s house. Within an hour, Howie was back home.

    1. And why would any public servant say that making 10 phone calls was too hard for her to do?

      That is ridiculous!

      1.  Ah, but they can hide behind that wonderful bureaucratic “I didn’t have to do anything”. I bet with 2 phone calls, the other dog’s owners could have told her whose dogs they were. But, a bureaucrat knows she can hide behind “the rules” rather than move a finger to do the common sense thing.

  4. Soooo, how does one reconcile this:
    “…found 10 names on the list. She did not call any of the names on Sullivan’s licensed dog owner list, which she said would have been too labor intensive, nor did she ask around the neighborhood where the dogs were found.”

    with this:
    “I try to do the best that I can for the animals.” ???

    1. I agree, 10 phone calls “too labor intensive?”  She must have been exhausted after picking up the dogs. Probably took some time off to rest . 

      What a disgrace this ACO is. LAZY…..

    2. but having said that, microchip and ID tags would have saved a lot of heartache for everybody involved.

        1. So a person that holds a public position loses all rights to personal expression during their private time?

    1. 20% of female dogs develope urinary incontinence/leakage after spaying.  Better to put up with 2 heat cycles a year than have to put diapers on your pet all the time.

      1. Where did you find that little tidbit? That’s a crock! Ask your vet. Spaying and neutering is always the best choice.

        1. More than
          20% of spayed females are affected with urinary incontinence. Both male
          and female dogs can be affected, with medium to large breeds being more prone
          for the problem. The number of cases is likely to increase with the growing
          number of older dogs, advances in geriatric veterinary care and significant
          amount of time pets spend indoors. Urethral Sphincter Mechanism Incompetence is
          the most commonly diagnosed cause of urinary incontinence: 81% of incontinent
          adult females and 57% of all dogs with involuntary urine loss.
          Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) is the most frequently dispensed medication for this
          type of incontinence.
          Hormone-responsive incontinence
          occurs in neutered dogs of both sexes and occasionally in spayed female cats but
          occurs most commonly in female dogs. The pet can urinate normally, but they leak
          urine while resting. Physical examination and blood and urine tests are usually
          normal in these pets. Hormone-responsive
          incontinence can occur months to years after a pet is neutered. As pets
          age they may become incontinent. This may be due to a weakening of the muscles
          that hold urine in the bladder. There are many diseases that can cause a pet to
          create more urine than normal (polyuria) and several of these occur in older
          pets. If a pet has one of these diseases and often has a full bladder, the full
          bladder can push against the weakened sphincter and cause incontinence. Older
          pets can also develop senility and simply be unaware that they are dribbling
          urine.
          http://www.medi-vet.com/UrinaryIncontinence.html

          1. Phenylpropanolamine is hardly used anymore, at least by any knowledgeable vet. That drug has many serious documented negative side effects and has been banned in a few places.
            It also was a main ingredient in speed back in the 80’s, cold medicines too.

          2.  The main benefits of neutering in male dogs :

            1. Eliminates prostate problems – the prostate gland enlarges as a
            dog ages when it’s under the influence of testosterone. This can result
            in constipation and makes it very uncomfortable for the dog. The
            prostate gland can also get infected which would inevitably mean the dog has to be neutered anyway to treat it.

            2. It reduces aggression in male dogs – not always true but usually
            if an aggressive entire male dog is presented at a veterinary clinic,
            the first thing the vet will recommend is neutering.

            3. It reduces wandering behavior and does seem to also reduce sexual drive (humping is less likely)

            4. Neutered dogs are less driven to urine mark everything in sight.

            5. There are already too many unwanted dogs in pounds and shelters,
            don’t assume that just because you have a male dog that you’re not
            adding to the problem – it takes 2 to tango – you are just as at fault
            if your male dog isn’t neutered and sets about making the neighborhood
            females pregnant.

            The main benefits of neutering in female dogs :

            1. Eliminates the possibility of uterine or ovarian cancer and also
            greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer, especially if your dog
            is neutered before her first heat.

            2. No chance of neighborhood male dogs fronting up at your doorstep when she does come into heat

            3. No mess – female dogs will spot blood during their heat – this could last up to 3 weeks.

            4. No false pregnancies or infection of the uterus (pyometra) which can be life threatening.

            5. Reduced incidence of mammary, ovarian and uterine tumors

          3. When did life become so messy?  Hopefully we are still allowed to make our own choices about what is right for each individual pet. 

      2. The incontinence is typically a direct result of the female dog having had puppies, not from being spayed.
        There are medications available just for that. My dog became slightly incontinent when she was approximately 5 years old and she lived the rest of her life (to 15) on something equivalent to hormone replacement pills and had no further incontinence.

      3. What about the increase in cancer and chance of uterine infections if left unspayed. Males have an increase chance of cancer also if unneutered
        I’ve had two females that were spayed and had no problem with incontinence.

        It is an individual preference. I believe that spayed and neutered dogs are much happier then coming into season twice a year 

        1. Did you ask the dogs?  Spaying and neutering just happens to make the owner happier…no messy heat cycles, no boy parts to worry about, no need to keep track of your dogs so they don’t get bred, less leg lifting , marking behavior, less agression…

          1. Your female pet will live a longer, healthier life.
            Spaying helps prevent uterine infections and breast cancer, which is fatal in about 50 percent of dogs and 90 percent of cats. Spaying your pet before her first heat offers the best protection from these diseases.
            Neutering provides major health benefits for your male.
            Besides preventing unwanted litters, neutering your male companion prevents testicular cancer, if done before six months of age.
            Your spayed female won’t go into heat.
            While cycles can vary, female felines usually go into heat four to five days every three weeks during breeding season. In an effort to advertise for mates, they’ll yowl and urinate more frequently—sometimes all over the house!
            Your male dog won’t want to roam away from home.
            An intact male will do just about anything to find a mate! That includes digging his way under the fence and making like Houdini to escape from the house. And once he’s free to roam, he risks injury in traffic and fights with other males.
            Your neutered male will be much better behaved.
            Neutered cats and dogs focus their attention on their human families. On the other hand, unneutered dogs and cats may mark their territory by spraying strong-smelling urine all over the house. Many aggression problems can be avoided by early neutering.
            Spaying or neutering will NOT make your pet fat.
            Don’t use that old excuse! Lack of exercise and overfeeding will cause your pet to pack on the extra pounds—not neutering. Your pet will remain fit and trim as long as you continue to provide exercise and monitor food intake.
            It is highly cost-effective.
            The cost of your pet’s spay/neuter surgery is a lot less than the cost of having and caring for a litter. It also beats the cost of treatment when your unneutered tom escapes and gets into fights with the neighborhood stray!
            Spaying and neutering your pet is good for the community.
            Stray animals pose a real problem in many parts of the country. They can prey on wildlife, cause car accidents, damage the local fauna and frighten children. Spaying and neutering packs a powerful punch in reducing the number of animals on the streets.
            Your pet doesn’t need to have a litter for your children to learn about the miracle of birth.
            Letting your pet produce offspring you have no intention of keeping is not a good lesson for your children—especially when so many unwanted animals end up in shelters. There are tons of books and videos available to teach your children about birth in a more responsible way.
            Spaying and neutering helps fight pet overpopulation. Every year, millions of cats and dogs of all ages and breeds are euthanized or suffer as strays. These high numbers are the result of unplanned litters that could have been prevented by spaying or neutering.

          2. My male dog was un housbroken at 1 year of age when I acquired him.  I had him neutered as I thought it would help to minimize the leg lifting…not…Neutered male cats _usually _ won’t spray, but they are at much higher risk for urinary calculi and blockages, which are often fatal.
            Unwanted litters can be prevented in other ways than spaying or neutering…comes down to responsibility…not allowing your dog to run free, and paying attention to what is going on.

            I had two unspayed female dogs who each lived to a ripe old age of 15 plus.   I had a spayed german shepard female who had to be put down because of mammary tumors that spread through her body.  Her last few months could not have been the most pleasant.

          3. “Unwanted litters can be prevented in other ways than spaying or
            neutering…comes down to responsibility…not allowing your dog to run
            free, and paying attention to what is going on.”

            You hit the nail on the head . . . only the owners were not responsible enough in this situation now were they?  They did allow their dog to run free and not pay attention to what was going on.  Yes, I know they weren’t just “running free”, but they did “escape” are were actually running free!

        2. Ok so lets”spay” and neuter all people, for health reasons. No more breast, uterine, testicular or prostate cancer. Oh, there is the issue of procreation, ok, lets wait until families are complete… but that will neutralize some of the benefits. Lessening aggression might also lower the rates of violent crime…

      4. Copied from a web site 
          “What are some of the health and behavioral benefits?
        Through neutering, you can help your dog or cat live a happier, healthier, longer life. Spaying eliminates the constant crying and nervous pacing of a female cat in heat. Spaying a female dog also eliminates the messiness associated with the heat cycle.
        Neutering of male dogs and cats can prevent certain undesirable sexual behaviors, such as urine marking, humping, male aggression and the urge to roam. If you have more than one pet in your household, all the pets will generally get along better if they are neutered.
        A long-term benefit of spaying and neutering is improved health for both cats and dogs. Spaying females prior to their first heat cycle nearly eliminates the risk of breast cancer and totally prevents uterine infections and uterine cancer. Neutering males prevents testicular cancer and enlargement of the prostate gland, and greatly reduces their risk for perianal tumors.”

      5. Better to leave them intact and let them escape and possibly be bred and have a litter of puppies???  Really???  So those can end up in rescue?

  5. Sounds as though there is more to this. Anyone who owned dogs of this breed would know how attached you get. Taking Maine dogs out of state shows meanness.

  6. Since Zwicker holds the position servicing several towns, her due diligence would include checking with more than one in her multi-jurisdiction.

    The rescue agency relied on representations from the clinic and the animal control officer.

    Between the two, they need to locate and return these pets to their rightful owners.

    Otherwise, they can expect to be ‘Komenized’ – via social media.

    1. And those 5 towns have Zwicker *bonded* (she’s a contractual employee).

      Which is a good thing–I’d file a multi-pronged lawsuit.

  7. I am a friend of the Warren family. Their dogs were very well taken care of. They were part of the family. It was their choice to get the dogs fixed. It is not a state law. Bella and Jake had collars on when they took off. Fyi Marie and YGRR have three different stories about the tags and collars. This is a very sad story. They did not realize Marie was the dog catcher. They had Dealt with Sharon in their pig attack. Sharon is familiar with the dogs.. and would have returned them.  did Marie contact Sharon regarding Jake and Bella? No she did not

    1. No, it is not a state law that your dog must be spayed or neutered, just as it is not a state law that we, as individuals, bathe regularly, brush our teeth, practice good hygiene and wear clean underwear. Spaying and/or neutering your dog is a good health practice. The fact that these people chose not to spay or neuter, would bounce their child on an elderly dog’s back, let two naturally energetic dogs run loose and not fully research the municipal response  command for lost animals suggests that there is plenty of blame to go around.

        1. Yes it is.  It is the owner’s responsibility to keep the animals contained.  If they “got loose accidentally”, it is not the dog’s fault, it’s the owners for not having proper containment to hold the dogs.

          1. Well, so you have never had an accident or made a mistake in your life or what? Sometimes things happen, that’s life. But to lose them forever because an accident isn’t right.

          2. Yes, but not with my animals. I have a secure fenced yard inside another fenced field and gates on my driveway, etc. However, even with all of that, my dogs are NEVER left unsupervised. I am there watching them.

          3. I have the same.  Unfortunately some people accidently leave them open.  It only takes a second.  I’m grateful the times people left gates open – my dogs would lay on the deck watching through the open gate and never left the yard.

          4. I never said I stayed home all day. My dogs are locked inside the house while I am at work. Not that it is ANY of your business, but I pay all my own bills and always have.

          5. No, I eat whatever I am in the mood for. And I don’t know Marie. Never met her. Would.’t know her if I ran smack into her.

          6. No, actually. My statement shows that I am a responsible dog owner! I have multiple dogs and livestock and they are all properly contained.

          7. Rev the owners are required by Maine law to have their dogs under control at all times when outside. The fact they “wondered”, “got out”, “ran away”, etc…means they did not have control of their dogs. They owners are at fault. And just so you know, I have owned/cared for dogs all of my adult life.

          8. I don’t care what the “law” says. Dogs (pets) are not property, they become members of the family. If you know so much about animals you would know this. If not then I feel sorry for your animals.

          9. We know you don’t “care what the “law” says”. But in the eyes of the law and in a court room they are just that….property. The only thing that would be recovered is the purchase price of the animal.

            And I was waiting for your second and third comment. I have owned dogs and cats all my adult life and they are treated like members of the family. They are pack animals and they are part of the family pack. The difference is they are not let out without collars, ID tags and are micro-chipped. That is what responsible owners do.

        2. According to the owners, the dogs either ‘took off from the yard and failed to come back’ which means they weren’t contained or being supervised, or ‘ran out the door and went missing’ so someone was there and watched the dogs take off and didn’t persue them. So how much of an accident is that? Maine has a leash law.

        3. You obviously don’t know Maine law about a dog owner’s responsibility.  See Title 7 of the Maine Revised Statutes sec. 3911.

        4. Oh, does that work?  “But officer, it was an accident – it’s NOT my fault!”  Great, will put that one away right here in my BS pocket and hold on to that baby for an emergency…please.   If these dogs “accidentally” got loose and killed something, or damaged something, what then – not their owner’s fault?  Everyone’s finger would come so quick out of their holsters your head would spin.

          1. My comment is towards the “they got loose – it was an accident – it’s not the owner’s fault.” If the dogs had done some damage, it would be a different song.  Your comment, however – oh, yeah, you are one of those who doesn’t read the whole post – my bad.  Of course you will be upset…it was an accident you didn’t read it all; it’s not your fault.

        1.  NO it should NOT be a law not everyone wants to bred their dogs but some do. If anything, it should be law to neuter stupid people cause god knows we have enough stupid opinionated people in Maine

    2. A simple call to the town office could have answered the question as to who does animal control. That being said, I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that Zwicker never took the 5 or perhaps even 10 minutes to place a few phone calls regarding these dogs. I do hope that somehow the Warrens are able to get their beloved pets home.

        1. I’m still reeling from that statement too. A whole 10 registered owners. Wow, above her pay grade I guess.

    3.  I would like you to let the Warrens know that I sent a respectful but straight forward email to the adoption agency that placed the dogs and asked them to do the right thing. i am also urging people on FB to do the same, I would urge them to create a FB page for these dogs to help get the word out. Maybe the new “owners” will see it and do the right thing

      1. How do you know the new owners have not seen this and chose to keep the dogs? Maybe they have kids that already love the dogs? Now you want to pull the dogs away from them and make them miserable too?

        1. Yes, because 9 years of family history should be trumped by 4 months with the new family? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

    4. This situation is sad.  My husband use to be an animal control officer and he believes the actions of the ACO was negligent.  I would love to speak with the family.  If you would pass my name along to them.  I have a facebook page.  Thanks!

    5. I would make the suggestion to the Warren family to start calling news stations in Massachusetts to see if at least one would cover this story. It would give this story the exposure in the state where their dogs have placed. Hopefully, the people who adopted Bella and Jake would see the news coverage. Or, at least get wind of it.

  8. How is it too labor intensive to call 10 people?? 10?? You can’t tell me that she was too busy to call 10 people…. If it were my dogs, she would be up the creek with no paddle…. She only followed the law to the level she wanted…. Good thing real police officers call the people that have missing people if someone is found cause what would it be like then in this world? Plus it doesn’t matter if they were spayed or neutered…. Maybe they were used to breed who knows.. It is up to the owners of the animals to decide if they want them fixed…. Accidents happen and dogs get loose all the time it’s true, mine have!!  I’m sorry if anyone doesn’t like this post but if it were one of you that this happened to or your just an animal lover you would surely be as upset….

    1. Most of you are so ignorant. Its not animal controls job to contact owners. Its YOUR dogs, YOU do the leg work.  They waited an extended amount of time before contacting the agency, not only that, the dogs were NO WHERE near the town they were from, so animal control is suppose to contact everyone in every town looking for dog owners?  Most of you really have no clue.

      1. A decent, caring human being would have no problem trying to do everything to reunite the dogs with their owners. A few years ago, a girl saw a cat get run over outside of my apartment building. The cat managed to run under some steps. The girl got my attention as I was about to leave my home. We managed to get the cat out from under the steps and get it to a veterinary hospital. Unfortunately, the cat’s injuries were too severe, and a vet euthanized it.

        The girl canvassed the neighborhood, knocking on doors, asking people whether they had lost a cat. I placed a “found” ad in the newspaper, and I monitored the “lost” ads. I responded to a couple of “lost” ads that had cats matching the description of the one I tried to rescue.

        I never once considered any of what I did to be too “labor intensive.”

        If there had been 30 “lost” ads for cats whose description was similar to that cat’s, I would have gladly made those calls.

        The animal control officer in this story should be ashamed of herself. She’s not fit for the job.

      2. They were found 2 miles from the town line – 2 miles? How is that “no where near” where they were from?

      3. Two miles down the road from their home, “mmhmm”.

        Through fields and woods in a straight line, it could have been a shorter distance.

        You don’t even know the geographical area and terrain in that particular locale.

  9. It’s too labor intensive to call 10 people? Seriously?

    I strongly recommend that the Warrens file a small-claims suit and get subpoenas to determine who has the dogs now.

        1. OK, I don’t know what the law in Maine is with regard to suits against towns and town officials, but I’ll assume hypothetically that the Warrens can sue the town and the ACO and that they can bring their suit in a Maine state court. 

          Assuming they sue for damages, what would the damages be other than the value of the dogs?

          On what basis could they determine who has the dogs now through their court action?  Who would they subpoena that could provide the information, and on what basis would the court require the information to be disclosed, given the confidentiality of the rescue organization’s information with regard to the identity of adoptive owners?

  10. Lessons abound here.  I would urge all dog/cat owners to have their pets microchipped.  These can be read anywhere in the country by those organizations which handle lost animals.  Meanwhile I hope they get their beloved pets back.  I’d be heartbroken if this happened to my dogs.

  11. Wow- I would be furious as well as heartbroken! Hopefully, Zwicker is done with this particular entry on her resume…..since she stinks at it!  In the meantime, put it on Facebook- we will all help you find your dogs!

  12. Zwicker also did this to two other goldens in August. They were not found in an area she covers. She had someone drive the dogs to Franklin so she could take them to Mass to YGRR..  why not contact that towns ACO???? to much work i guess

  13.  Hopefully the family will get their beloved pets back; and even if they do, they should still sue the town for hiring and supporting such a dolt as Animal Control Officer.  If it were one my dogs,  we would be talking about spaying and neutering a few public officials and not pets in this comment section.

    1. Obviously all dogs stay within town limits when roaming, how could these dogs have missed that memo? And they are the first dogs in the history of domesticated animals to roam a bit from their property lines…I see dogs wandering around in Maine all the time, and I regularly drive all over the state. M

    2.  …clearly the fault of the dogs, you say! I say that I hope that was ‘tongue in cheek’?

    3. People in Maine who aren’t familiar with that part of Hancock County don’t understand that you can blink your eyes quickly; and suddenly be in the next town.

      Literally…just down the road (esp. where the Warren family resides).

  14. here is there websight http://www.ygrr.org/
    lets all get this on Facebook and see if we can get the people that have these dogs to do the right thing since the rescue people wont We all know someone in Mass insure spread the story to all your FB freinds …

  15. For the new owners, please call this family and give the dogs back.  I had  a cat that ran away months ago and I wonder every day what happened to him, he is 12. 

  16. why bother getting a dog license if the animal control officer is not going to call anyone who registered the dogs. Fire her!!!!

    1. I had a senior Golden show up in my yard a few years ago. She had tags on. I called the number , gave them my info. A few minutes later a very relieved owner called me and came right away to pick up her “gypsy” .  This took very little effort and the outcome was great.  

      Dogs take off !  Mine have, they are tagged ect. And they have a fenced in yard. Things happen and if a dog wants out they can be really creative at getting out. 

  17. What good would it have done to call around Sullivan ? Zwicker has worked for Sullivan for  years is listed in town crier . Franklin  should of told the Warrens  Zwicker worked for them as Sharon worked for both towns as well.

  18. I feel for this family! This is a very sad story situation. I hope who ever has the Dog’s see’s this and has the heart to return the Dog’s! They were not abused and the family loves them very much. I just hope that people learn a lesson from this tragedy and MICROCHIP your animals. It will cost you less heartache in the unfortunate situation such as this. 

    1. The so-called “rescue” imprints a tattoo on the inner thigh of the adoptees; which means that it shouldn’t be difficult to ‘sniff out’ (pun intended) who adopted them.

      Ditto, re: how, when, and by whom they were processed upon admission (cell phone records, and ACO paper & electronic trails.If they’d like to continue operating, that is.

  19. “Zwicker said she checked who in Sullivan has licensed golden retrievers and found 10 names on the list. She did not call any of the names on Sullivan’s licensed dog owner list, which she said would have been too labor intensive, nor did she ask around the neighborhood where the dogs were found.”

    too labor intensive to make 10 phone calls, most of which would of just been answering machines. this woman is in the wrong and something should be done!

  20. Let’s flood Yankee rescue with calls and emails to make sure the “new owners” know of this!!!!!! 

      1.  I posted this story on various posts on this page shortly after the BDN published it (prior to any comments here) in hopes their FaceBook friends would read it and maybe put 2 and 2 together…..seems the rescue took the additional steps of removing all posts and locking down the page.

    1. Yankee Rescue did everything they were supposed to do.  They are NOT at fault here, so don’t go after them.  What Yankee Rescue did was to provide these unspayed and unneutered stray dogs with a loving new home!  Yankee Rescue actually saved these two dogs from being euthanized!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  So PLEASE people, do NOT blame the rescue group!

    2. I agree, the very least Yankee rescue should do is to reach out the new dog owners, explain what happened and provide them with the choice to do the right thing and return the dogs. They have not been with the new owners that long.

      1. Or be sued, and risk losing their license to operate (throughout New England)–it’s a highly lucrative business.

        1. And you would sue them for what?

          And if (and that is a huge if) you could find an attorney that would be willing to take the case the most you would recover is the purchase price of the dog. Dogs are considered property and the most you can recover is what you paid for them.

  21. A good animal control officer is hard to find and some people do not understand that the family pets are not just animals but part of your family just like your children. I feel so bad for these people and for the dogs. The dogs are probably terrified and wondering where there family is. I have 2 GSD’s that I have raised since babies and I would be devistated if this happened to them. It would be like losing one of my children. This animal control officer should do the right thing and find where they are and get them back. It’s not like they were abused by there owners, look at them. They are beautifully taken care of and happy.

  22. As sad as this tale is, also let it be a lesson to all pet owners who read this.  INVEST in a microchip for your pet.

  23. This seriously breaks my heart. As a golden owner myself, I can absolutely relate to this family. I am hoping and praying that the new owners will see this article and find it within their heart to do the right thing and return the dogs. Hopefully they keep us all posted!

  24. These beautiful dogs need to back with the family that has taken care of and loved them for such a long time. I’m sure the children are heart broken about it as well as the adults. I hope the people that have the dogs now, see this article or hear about where these dogs came from, and return them. If these were my dogs I would leave no stone unturned until I found out where they are and get them back. 

    1. You would leave no stone unturned, but these people didn’t even bother to call the ACO until a few weeks went by. A simple call to the police or town clerk would have given the number of the ACO.

  25. How is animal control officer dispatched to complaints, I should think by The Hancock RD, she should have been well aware of the missing dogs, The last I new a found dogs as well as any other animal has to be kept of a period of time before able to be placed. It appears that the ACO didn’t  follow guidelines and was as some others stated could have done alittle (alot) more to find the owners, ACO officers have to take state training before be appointed to the job. An ACO such as this makes the ones that try to go above and beyond the job for very little pay look bad.. I would request a written report from the ACO involved and a copy of the certification as to her being an ACO and then contact an attorney. I have my dog with me everyday all day long, it is part of my family not just a dog. Good Luck with your search….

  26. The Warren family would like me to Thank everyone for their help.. Some of you have posted on The YGRR fb page. just so u all know the person that has control of that page has deleted everything you have posted.

    1. I hope they can get their dogs back. Have the Warrens started a Facebook page of their own? If they do, perhaps the new owners will see it, and be persuaded to do the right thing. The Warrens could also put ads in a few papers in the area where they believe the dogs might be living.

  27. too much ignorance further down on the page for me! all you that are arguing about not spaying/neutering, you all should go to a “animal shelter or animal control facilities and visit the back room, and watch them put down dogs and cats for a whole day and I bet 95% of you would spay/neuter your pets and the 5% that wouldnt well  you need to get some mental HELP! 

  28. Pathetic. Making 10 phone calls by animal control officer Zwicker was “to0 labor intensive”. My guess it would have taken 15 minutes to do that. Zwicker should be disposed of her job as animal control officer, she obviously does not care….

     Yankee Golden Rescue should reach out to the adopters of the dogs and request they be returned.  To not do that is deplorable. Shame on that rescue group.

    ALWAYS MICROCHIP YOUR DOGS !!!!

    1. If we expect the ACO to make at least 10 phone calls, shouldn’t we expect the owners to have made at LEAST twice that many?????

  29. They make anyone the dog catcher who will take the least amount of compensation and that person cuts corners, has a lack of integrity and accountsbility, and it’s all legal? Doesn’t pass the smell test!

  30. I feel for this family, and can relate. My wife two years ago had a cat that was very special to her turn up missing. They were the closest I have ever seen. We searched high and low, posted everywhere, called all the agencies, animal marshal agents, the clinics and shelters to no avail. We even went to one shelter in our local area and the next county over only to feel like at both shelters we had no right to ask questions and told we had no right to see the “animals out back that were not yet checked in and ready for adoption”. We felt because her cat was missing that we were lower then dirt; bad animal owners. It had crossed our minds that this one shelter had her cat, and because of its good health and loving nature they adopted it out quickly with no regard that it may be somebodies companion. In order to retain a bit of sanity and avoid conspiracy theories we chose to believe that her cat was taken by a wild animal (a seemingly harsh vision), as it would be even harder to take that other humans appearing as kind hearted individuals could be in reality be that cruel hiding behind a state law that dismisses, and severs the connection of a caring pet owner within days as a mere technicality. I certainly wish the best to this family in recovering their family members, and do hope they drive the point home by modifying these statues… for example by way of legally required official and agency disclosure and non interference upon a pet owner’s inquiry and accesibility to an animal in the case of the probability its theirs and legal increase in the time period before an animal can be adopted out I feel would be places to start.  I understand these shelters have limited budgets and owners pets kept for the period allowed by law should be charged upon retreiving their pets, but to push these animals along to new owners within a week is just wrong.

  31. such a shame…our 2 labs ran off on us and fortunately some good people found them and returned them (they had tags on).  We were so worried about them, we went and got an electronic collars and have never had to worry again.  My heart goes out to this family….I hope they get their dogs back.

  32. most of you are so ignorant. Its not animal controls job to contact owners. Its YOUR dogs, YOU do the leg work. They waited an extended amount of time before contacting the agency, not only that, the dogs were NO WHERE near the town they were from, so animal control is suppose to contact everyone in every town looking for dog owners? Most of you really have no clue and don’t think before speaking.

  33. Imagine your nine year old child wanders down the street from your house and the local authorities find them and place them in foster care and then tell you “you can’t have them back and we did the right thing” ….Most pet owners treat their dogs and cats like children. Animals have distinct personalities and more and more we are finding out that they are subject to physical and emotional distress when they experience a trauma. Being chased down, confined and then relocated to an unfamiliar family in an unfamiliar place sounds a lot like a trauma to me. Have you ever met a neurotic dog….they aren’t born that way, they evolve because of emotional issues, usually regarding emotional and physical abuse. I think this was a disgraceful way to handle the situation and the ” dog catcher” obviously doesn’t own a pet or if she does I feel badly for it…..Please help if there is any way you can to return the Warren’s babies…..I’m so sorry Warren family, my heart breaks for you.

  34. The animal control officer did not do enough to try to find the owners. They should hire an attorney to try to get their dogs back and go after her for damages.

    1. I understand your feeling, and I sympathize with the Warrens.  But this doesn’t warrant a lawsuit, even if the Warrens could find a lawyer who would do it.

      1. And they would have to prove damages and as animals are considered property they are only entitled to the cost of the property (i.e. what they paid for the dogs). They cannot recover “pain and suffering”, etc…

        1. Spot on.  Of course any lawyer understands about the damage issues, so it’s very unlikely a lawyer would take this case.

  35. Why didn’t they call every shelter right away…doesn’t make sense.  Also everyone is saying that their kids miss the dogs so much and the new owners should return them.  Ok what about the new owners who have had them for months, their children probably now too love the dogs and wouldn’t want to part with them.  It all could have been avoided if they had only called every shelter, let alone have the dogs microchiped.

  36. Rescue groups can be vigilante like and crazy, they think any animal that is found roaming freely is an abused animal and that the owners no longer deserve them. They can play judge, jury and executioner when it comes to animals.  I’ve seen enough cases that the rescue groups refuse to give out the new owner’s names even though there’s a crying child involved or a heartbroken owner who just wants their buddy back.  

  37. exactly Jamie! I’m giving the new owners the benefit of the doubt that they don’t know what’s going on, but they way things happened so quickly, I have a tough time buying it.  All I know is if I had someone else’s dogs who were elders, like these two, I would want them back with their family.  I am a dog lover, animal lover and believe the bond we have with animals is a beautiful thing.  Time for the new owners to step up and do the right thing! 

  38. THAT’S BS the rescue group should contact the “new” owners and explain the history and what happened and IF they love the animal and love animals in general then it stands to reason they would empathize with the lost family and sit down with their own family and make a decision whether or not to give the dogs back to the family that lost them. The rescue not at least attempting to help, is upsetting to say the least. It’s a loving family that lost them, not abusers. If I were the new owners and I truly felt the family loved the dog, I would return the dog… Plenty of others to adopt that have no one…

  39. A similar situation occurred early March this year to an acquaintance of mine. This individual was up from Mass on vacation staying at a local motel. He opened the motel door, and the dog ran off into the woods. A 4 hour search came up with nothing. All agencies were contacted with the appropriate contact info. 2 weeks later this missing dog was placed on the Bangor Humane Society website up for adoption. The owner found out through another friend that had been motoring the dogs whereabouts. The Humane Sociaty had denied having the dog on an earlier contact. Once the owner came up to recover the dog, the original collar and I.D. tags were still in possession of the Humane Society. They made no attempt to contact the owner. This just happened to be a couple of week prior to their big adoption push.

    1. This  is shocking!!!

       If it  is true the Bangor Humane Society had the original collar and ID tags,  I  would call the national organization and complain about this specific case.

      1. Yup. Thats the one. No attempt was made to contact the owner, after the owner had contacted them the same day the dog came up missing. To add insult to injury, they had an online adoption price of $350. for the dog. Dog was fixed already, shots indicated on tags. BDN is working this one hard.

  40. very snaughty . i have delt with the small animal clinic in the past and i have to say these people should get there dogs back. good ground s for a law suit . against the ACO and the small animal clinic

    1. Defendant Lawyer – “Did your dogs have collars on on the day they went missing?”

      Owner – “Ah…one did.”

      Defendant Lawyer – “Did BOTH dogs have collars on on the day they went missing?”

      Owner – “Ah…no they didn’t.”

      Defendant Lawyer – “And on the collar there is a place to affix the town issued license tag and state issued rabies tag, did your collar have these tags affixed to the collar?”

      Owner – “Ah….no.”

        1. LOL, “how dare I”?

          OK, look at the pictures. One buckle collar is visible on one dog and no tags are visible in any photo of either dog.

          You don’t think that is the way the cross would go? Fine but I am entitled to my comment and opinion just like those condemning the ACO, the towns, the clinic and the rescue group.

          1. i know what people like you are really like. you cant judge by a picture . you cant fool me .pictures dont tell the full story. that was one split second moment.

          2. You mean like the picture that the BDN put up yesterday and later pulled down. The one that showed a 4 year old riding the back of a 9 year old dog? Dogs are not meant to be riden by anyone at any age.

          3. “i know what people like you are really like.”

            Really, so tell me what am I “really like”?
            ~~~~~
            “you cant judge by a picture
            . you cant fool me .pictures dont tell the full story. that was one
            split second moment.”

            You mean like the photo that appeared in the original article yesterday that the BDN decided to pull for unknown reasons?

  41. The Ellsworth Clinic had better have some serious conversations with their insurer. By giving the Warren family misinformation regarding their dogs they may have incurred serious liability. If this story is picked up nationwide the  YGRR will be inundated with complaints which will affect fundraising and affiliations with reputable shelter. Who would really trust an organization that refuses to help in this situation?

      1. What did the rescue do that was wrong? They took ownership of the dogs after Maine law declared them as strays. They then found new home(s) for them under Massachusetts law.

        1. I don’t think the rescue has done anything wrong yet, but many are watching to see if they do the right thing; in this case is to notify the adopters. If they do they may give them back. That is the morally correct thing for them to do.

  42. my dogs have a license and a tag with my phone number on it.  They are also microchipped. The article doesn’t state if these dogs and any ID on their collars.  This is why it is imperative to ID your dogs.

    1. The article said that one of the dogs had a collar, but there were no tags, microchips, or tattoos.

  43. When the Warrens called the Ellsorth clinic, it was only TWO weeks after the dogs were placed at Yankee Golden Rescue? This fact is alarming, why didn’t the Ellsworth  clinic take immediate action and ask the dogs be recalled.  All in all less than one month had elapsed since the dogs were picked up.

    That leads me to believe the Warrens were taking actions to find the dogs, but it appears once the dogs were picked up, it became easier to ship them out of state than to do anything else.

    What did the clinic tell the Warrens when they called? Did they deny having knowledge about the dogs? Parts of the story do not add up.

    1. Nov. 4 marie brought dogs to SAC in ellsworth        Nov. 11 marie went back and picked up dogs and transported to YGRR. Nov 23 is the earliest date they could find  called on their phone records. dogs were only  sac for 8 days. i think they can stay for 10???

      1. 7 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated Section 3913  indicates that the hold period is 6 days.  After six days the ownership is vested in the animal shelter.  Animal shelter is defined in Section 3907.

        Assuming the ellsworth clinic is truly an “animal shelter” after 6 days ownership of the animal vests in them.  The facts of this case make me angry,  ACO dropped the dog off at a vets office claiming to be an “animal shelter” and at the first possible date the very same ACO picked up the animals and took them away to a private rescue group all the while  not having 15 minutes to spare to call  ten dog owners to see if the pups belonged to them? 

        These people paid to have their dogs liscensed, and for naught.

        I hope the person(s) who have the dogs learns about what transpired here and gives them back.

        1. YGRR ought to inform the new owners so they will know that the dogs and their previous owners have been identified.  The new owners might then decide the dogs should be returned.  

  44. How horrible for this family. I hope the YGRR does the right thing here and has the new owners return these dogs to the Warrens. 

      1. Law enforcement where? Once again, if there is any legal ‘fault’ the rescue didn’t participate in it. The town or ACO gave the dogs to the rescue because they had ownership of the dogs.

    1. lets not forget about the 2 other goldens from aug she brought in.that were not found in here area.

  45. they need to be given back!!!!!!! these are their kids, they are there family members!!!!  C’mon you have to do the right thing and give them back…

  46. We live near a vet and often have stray cats and dogs in our back yard. I make more than 10 phone calls when I have a stray around just to try and locate the owners. I call the vet, police, local shelters, and neighbors to see if anyone is familar with the animal(s) or if anyone has reported them missing. I also search the internet for lost animals and have also placed FREE found ads in BDN. This ACO didn’t do any of these things or those dogs would be curled up sleeping in their righful home with their rightful FAMILY right now. Shame on the ACO and the animal shelter!!!

  47. Apparently someone at BDN didn’t like what I had to say. I had about 150 likes on it so I’d say plenty of people agreed with what I said. I did not break any of the rules. I’m curious why my post was deleted??? 

      1.  There was NO insult directed at a subject of the story. Stating facts is not an insult, it’s a fact. Typical of BDN to censor if it doesn’t align with your thinking. Just one of many reasons I stopped delivery of your paper years ago.

  48. I usually do not recommend this, but if nobody listens…and …I really hate to recommend this I would get a lawyer (key words here)…that can get the point across really clear. Its hard because our state saw fit to write this six day statute that appears to be intent on beating down the loving pet owners.

      1. The only thing I believe that this family may make any leeway on in a court is that the Animal Control Officer did not call around to anyone. Without looking at the laws it remains a question if this was part of her legally charged and required duties. Another may be the initial transport of these dogs interstate by those other than an owner without proper papers. I do not believe our statute was written with the intent of transporting deemed forfeited animals across state lines for adoption. I know its a really tough argument especially with the statutes in place, but seems like it may be the only recourse. I really hope those who received the dogs meet with and consider returning them to this family.

  49. What is the point of paying a yearly license fee if it does help identify you as the owner?  My dog has his collar on with both his Maine State License Tags and his Rabies Tag.

    1. The tags do work if they are on the dogs. The ACO said one dog had a collar with no tags and the other dog had no collar. Look at all the photos, no collars or collars without tags.

  50. http://www.hudsonpd.org/contactinfo.html

    http://www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/emergency_order.htm

    YGRR yanked their info off of their Facebook page this afternoon (or so they’d like to think–nothing ever “deletes” on FB (can be plucked from the server).

    A few of us were flooding them–all that’s left now is their photo albums & basic info.

    They’re in deep “doggie doo,” and I’m being polite, trust me!

    http://on.fb.me/IftcZw

    Irony: they’ve kept their “auction” info intact.

    If they don’t return Bella and Jake, there won’t be any *need* for an auction.

    I smell something highly slimy, indeed.

    A few lawsuits in the works would smarten them up…no animal rescue org. needs bad press like this!

    1. The rescue is not at fault.  The town had the dogs and called the rescue to take them. That doesnt seem ‘highly slimy’. If all the posters feel there is a wrong here, the buck starts and stops with the owners.

        1. No it doesn’t the buck stopped with the owners that failed to have ANY identification on their dogs.

  51. Does anyone have any idea how small Franklin is? The population of around 1,300 people. How many households would that be? I find it incredibly difficult to believe that  it is such a hard task to ask around and find the owners. too labor intensive to call the 10 names of people owning golden retrievers .. wow … that sure is some very labor intensive job skills there …  probably not even considered under “and all other duties assigned under a job description” the family is being blamed and every one else seems to be treating this like what’s the big deal the dogs are ok … I hope you get your dogs back, they’re a part of your family and I’m sure they love and miss you too. Perhaps they followed the law to the letter, but common sense should prevails period, and  in a very small town ,,,seriously, how many families have 2 golden retrievers .. really not a big time investigation, top secret, call in the FBI for coverage activity .. go to the darn grocery store, someone there will know who had the two dogs. I hope this article gets coverage in MA so the owners might find this. good luck.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3

  52. WELL. …. first get this story OUT !!!! CAPE COD TIMES, BOSTON HERALD. 

    IF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS ARE READING THESE POSTS AND LETS HOPE THEY ARE DONT WAIT………..CAPE COD TIMES HYANNIS MASS.  BOSTON HERALD, BOSTON MASS. 

    What a lame excuse for a “dog officer”……………..DO YOUR JOB TO THE FULLEST.

    Yesterday my hubby (drives truck) was coming down a main road on the Cape.  In the middle of the road on a double yellow line stood this little ( Jack Russell ) doggie, petrified, frozen against cars/trucks doing a range of speed between 50-70.  He stopped his massive truck, emergency lights flashing, go out stopped traffic the other way, approached the little furbabie and this baby leapt into his arms.  He called me dropped the little one off with me (we have 4 furbabies) and off I went to the spot where he found her.  Up and down the road, just looking for a sign of someone who was in distress or someone who looked like they would be calling out for their dog.  Nothing.  Went to the vets office that was on this same road and gave them the Rabies number to run in their data base.  Nothing, “not our tag”…color was silver.  Left there called the Animal Inn also on the same road.  The guy answers, I explain that we found a dog on the main road.  I ask “has anyone called for their missing dog?” he replies “yes, describe the dog to me”….”You describe the dog TO ME”…as I know how these situations turn out.  You drop the dog off you never see the dog again.  So he did to the “T”….and then he gave me the owners name, the dogs name, and the phone number of the owner.  I called her and we were about 1 minute from their home.  We reunited “Roxie” with “Rebecca”….after alot of tears and hugs we all had a happy ending. 

    Lesson learned……Do your job as a humane human,  go the extra mile, DO THE RIGHT THING.  The bull crap that these “officials” put people through is just BS.  

    1.  According to their website the rescue works in the SIX New England states. Just because they have a MA address doesn’t mean the dogs are there. They could be adopted back into Maine! There might be a few more papers you need to contact

  53. This is a sad case that was completely avoidable. Posters are blaming the ACO, the vet clinic in Ellsworth and the animal rescue in Massachusetts.

    But posters are forgetting that this was completely preventable. The owners are responsible.

    You may not like this statement but the dogs (according to the article) had no identification. No state rabies tag that would have identified the owner through the tag number. No state license that would have identified the owner through the tag number. No engraved owner tag that cost under $10.00 in most cases. No microchip, No microchip ID tag. No tattoo. Nothing.

    Yes, this was completely preventable.

    Let this be a lesson to all dog owners.

  54. this sounds like a horror story……I think everyone should reconsider Zwicker’s postion and motives…..this just sounds like it never should have happened ……how dreadfully sad!

    1. Dog in the front seat of the car, NOT wearing a collar. There isn’t even a mark on her neck where a collar might have been. Lends some credibility to the statement that one of the dogs didn’t have a collar on when they were picked up.

      1. Still, why not make the ten phone calls after going through the trouble of getting the list of names? Its like hauling your boat to the water and then deciding its “too labor intensive” to go fishing.
         

  55. Marie also stated to the family ” Even if i find a dog wearing  collars and tags, I still don’t have to return them to the owner”.  Thats  just who we need in our towns..  Call her and ask her,she will tell you the same. Those dogs had collars and tags on,someone took them off or is lying. . Report states… collars but no tags..

    1. Marie on phone stated ” no collars or tags”
      Yankee stated ‘one had a collar.  get your story strait people.
      Marie wrote in report “collars no tags

    2. I believe if the ACO knows who the owner is they are required to make contact.  So in this case the ACO will never admit she knew who the owner was because she would lose her job.
       

  56. “Zwicker said she checked who in Sullivan has licensed golden retrievers and found 10 names on the list. She did not call any of the names on Sullivan’s licensed dog owner list, which she said would have been too labor intensive, nor did she ask around the neighborhood where the dogs were found.”  Are you kidding me!? ITS YOUR JOB! 

  57. Someone posted a clever quote about when you have no other excuses, you use the excuse “I followed the law.”  WHERE DID IT GO??  :(

    1. I’m not sure whats happening here, alot of post are disappearing andthough I might not agree with them, I cant for the life of me figure out why they are being deleted. Very strange.

  58. I feel like when you pay for license for your dog you should get something in return, least of which should be the reasonable expectation that the local agencies would follow up on basic information.

    I wish all the agencies involved here would have shown the same zealousness to find the owners rather than fuel an out of State expensive and unapologetic “rescue” organization.

    If I were the Warrens I know would become curious about Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue’s financial status, are they a nonprofit? How do they get their funding? Do people know how loose their ethical standards are? A youtube video perhaps…

    1. From the Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue website –

      Question – If I were the Warrens I know would become curious about Yankee Golden
      Retriever Rescue’s financial status, are they a nonprofit?

      “YGRR is a non-profit, charitable 501(c)(3) organization which provides veterinary care and permanent new homes for Golden Retrievers from the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont).” http://www.ygrr.org/index.html
      ~~~~~
      Question – How do they get their funding?

      “YGRR relies on donations, fund-raising activities and memberships for its income. We do not receive any state or federal funds. Donations to YGRR are tax deductible.”  http://www.ygrr.org/index.html
      ~~~~~
      Question – Do people know how loose their ethical standards are?

      Comment – You are throwing the rescue under the bus for following the rules that were in place. What did they do that was wrong in this process?

  59. thats messed up..i’d hire a private investigator and go get em myself!! pets are family people..NOT objects to be bartered and swapped off as u may! good luck to this family!!

  60. Possibly the  RESCUE club could contact the new owners and explain the real oners have been found and would like their family members back. The retrievers at times do rome, had a pair visit me that were from a mile away acouple times a year…I would call the owners for a pick up.

  61. It’s easier for people to get abused children or unwanted children in foster care back than your own pets.   The animal world has more protection against someone coming and snatching back their pets, but if you have foster children or are trying to adopt, they can come take them anytime for any reason. 

  62. The dogs are 9 years old!!   How cruel people are to keep these beautiful animals from their own ers.    This doesn’t shed a good light on the operation of the Golden  Retriever rescue group. 
     Somehow a mistake was made.    They should voluntarily return the dogs to their owners.  I am sure the “new owners”  adopted these dogs out of love of animals & will return them to this family out of their love for animals.

    1. The rescue group cannot force anyone to do anything. They cannot “voluntarily” return property they no longer have in their possession.

  63. I would have to say that animal control failed in this instance. They did the least that they could to jusyify to themselves  that they did a good job.

  64. If you reaaly love dogs, you want what is best for the dog.  Being reunite with their family is what is best for everyone.

  65. Sounds like this Zwicker woman makes her own judgement calls– on who is a good candidate for pet ownership. What a joke. Again I say, bottom line is that everyone except for the true owners in Franklin are going to get a ton of BAD PRESS!  Zwicker, Small Animal Clinic and this Rescue Group.  Word will hopefully be spread fast and the dogs can get home where they belong!

  66. As a dog owner and a person involved with rescue organizations, I find this appalling.  There are hundreds of dogs with no home to go to who need the resources of the rescue organizations.  To use those resources for dogs who have a good home is a shame.  If one or more of my 4 dogs were taken this way, I just don’t know what I would do.  Shame on the town of Franklin and on Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue.  At least explain the situation to the new owners and ask them if they will give back the dogs.

    1. How much involvement do you have with rescue organizations?  If you do rescue on a routine basis, then you know how it works.  The rescue group took the dogs from the town, who was the legal owner at the time.  The Town turned them over to the rescue group and the rescue group adopted them to a new home under a contract with the new adoptive owners.  Now because the owner has shown up 5 months later, you want the rescue group to break their contract with the new owners and take the dogs away and return them to the previous owners who were irresponsible enough to have unspayed and unneutered 9 year old dogs that were not supervised properly?  How long do you think the rescue groups would be around if every time they adopt out a dog, the new owners have to fear that at any time the rescue group could come and take the dog back because the previous owner had shown up and wants their dog back?

      1. That is not what I meant.  What I meant is I would ask the rescue group to call the people with the dogs and ask them if they would be willing to return the dogs.  Also, I would expect the original owners if they get the dogs back to reimburse the rescue organization for any costs it incurred for the dogs and pay the rescue fee back to the people who have the dogs.  Probably not inexpensive but if they really want their dogs back then they should be willing to do this.

  67. It only makes common sense to return the dogs to the family. “Too labor intensive?” I think it’s time for a new animal control officer!  If I was in that situation I would be hiring a lawyer.

  68. This is why my dog is microchipped.They would not have been able to dispute ownership had these dogs been chipped , as well.

  69. Most likely, the rescue group did not know of the dog’s history, ok. They acted in good faith placing the dogs. But now they now. They now have the option to attempt to make the situation right. They can do it without disclosing anyone’s private information. 

  70. If I were the new adoptive family of these pups, I would WANT them to be with their real mom, dad, and family.  Sure hope this has a happy ending.

  71. Alot of blame being thrown around, but it seems to me that  admitting that  making a few phone calls was to much  of a burden shows where the blame should be directed. If 10 phone numbers is too much of a burden to be bothered with, would 6 have been ok? 4 or 5? The point here is, what  lengths are appropriate to  go through to hep  those who pay your salary, those that you serve?Is doing  the bare minimum ,that the Law say’s you must do, enough? Are those the standards now, just enough to not  get in trouble?
     I’m saddened by what the Warren family has gone through.A very sad story.

  72. I hope they get their dogs back….My dogs are microchiped for this reason. Worth the investment if it prevents heartbeak….so sorry for the kids. I will post this on my facebook, and if everyone does the same, it might help.

    1. Pls. read my posts herein.

      Hit refresh.YGRR’s rescue number is tattoed on the inner thigh of all dogs placed; so Bella and Jake are now readily “identifiable.”

  73. These dogs were part of the family. What if this had’ve been children rather than dogs? Common sense and compassion should be a requirement for an Animal Control Officer or any Officer for that matter.

  74. What I don’t understand is WHY the dogs were taken to the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth (a veterinarians’ office) and then shipped out of state.  Contract with the Town?  There are two EXCELLENT shelters in the area, The Ark in Cherryfield and the SPCA in Trenton both of which, I’m sure, would have offered the dogs for adoption locally.  The Warrens might have had a good chance of retrieving their pups.

    1. Contract with *five* towns.

      Sullivan, Sorrento, Hancock, Franklin, and Lamoine.

      SAC in Ellsworth makes $$$ off of receiving them (I won’t elaborate further); and not every citizen of those five towns is *aware* of that lil’ factoid.

      1. Let me “elaborate” for you….

        “Contract with *five* towns.”

        Yes, the Small Animal Clinic has a contract to provide kennel services to towns in Hancock County for dogs and cats that are picked up by the ACO as stray. That is a fact. The Town of Bucksport has contracts with several towns for the same thing. The City of Bangor does too. There is nothing sinister about it and is required by state law.
        ~~~~~
        “Sullivan, Sorrento, Hancock, Franklin, and Lamoine.”

        Your point?
        ~~~~~
        “SAC in Ellsworth makes $$$ off of receiving them (I won’t elaborate further); and not every citizen of those five towns is *aware* of that lil’ factoid.”

        Yes they receive money for boarding the stray dogs and cats. Do you expect them to do it for free? If they didn’t have a contract with the towns they would be passing along the cost to their customers. By the way, the contract(s) are a matter of public record and a simple phone call with give you all the information you need. Or, you could wait for the Annual Town Reports and the amount on money budgeted by the five towns (and the amount spent) is there for all to see.
        ~~~~~
        I know you think something dark and sinister is going on and some sort of “dognapping” gang is operating in Hancock County lead by the ACO. But the fact of the matter is if the dogs had been micro-chipped this would have had a much better outcome and wouldn’t be in the BDN.

  75. I’m sure they had their tag.. The odds one one losing a set of tag is possibile but both.. Check and see how many people got paid for the dogs along the way… Fire them all… Nothing was done wrong. Don’t believe anything they say and sue them to get your dogs back.

  76. As the owner of two beautiful golden retrievers, I can not imagine how this poor family feels!!!!  Not to mention the dogs not being able to see their humans begin!!!  My dogs go nuts if they don’t see my kids every day; they start pacing until everyone is home safe and sound.   Belle and Jake need to be returned to their humans ASAP!!!!!

  77. why dont you think this is news Mr. Monroe? This story had almost 11,000 hits just last night alone. This family would love to have their dogs back. There are so many kind hearted people that have been helping the family.

    1. They’re screening phone calls–waste of time.

      Needs to be in the mainstream media (social media, Twitter, Facebook, email, TV, dead tree newspapers, etc.).

    1.  Did it first thing this am….plus sent a notice to Cape Cod Times down here in Mass, and WXTK morning news manager. 

      1. Thank you–venues in MA might not be as cooperative, re: negative press for their state.

        However,  this can also bubble up virally (nothing they can do about it via Google search optimization)!

        The YGRR operates throughout ALL of New England, so this isn’t just about MA.

        http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome

    2.  They were picked up roaming at large, held for the minimum 6 days, unclaimed and placed with a rescue organization who spayed, neutered, vaccinated, tattooed them and placed them in a new home. Hardly stolen and sold.

  78. of course there is a solution here;; The rescue peopel can call the new owners  themselves explain what happened and ask if they will give them back .  I would bet they would.

    they aren’t looking to blame, just to avoid anyone else going thru this pain again and most importantly to GET THEIR DOGS BACK .

    Nothing prevents the rescue people from calling the new owners.If they are dogs lover they will understand and return the dogs .

    1. If they’re wise, they will (esp. with an upcoming “auction”)!

      Generally speaking, citizens are very supportive of animal shelters and rescue orgs.

      Betray trust; and receive negative press?

      Not so much.

      Hit “like” on Bella & Jake’s community Facebook page, please!

      http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome

  79. Seems like it wouldn’t be too hard to make 10 phone calls. I could understand if it was 100 people, but 10 wouldn’t be too hard to track down. Besides, it’s the right thing to do. Pets are like family members.

    1. The locals in that area hang out at the Franklin Trading Post general store.

      It’s part “gossip” in there; and part truth, re: what’s happening.

      Not at all difficult to get the word out (Zwicker).

      Bulletin board present, too–as well as available at the town hall.

      Marie Zwicker made NO effort to do anything, it’s what she’s PAID to do; and all five towns who contracted her as ACO are legally and financially liable.

      Additionally, there’s paperwork, electronic trail (computer), vehicular records (mileage & gas billed);  and cell phone records trail.

      http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome

      1. Only one town might (and it is a very BIG might) be on the hook and that town is the one she was working for when she picked up the two dogs.

        If you work for more than one employer (as I do) and you do something on one job and the other job had no control over your work or actions at the time, the second employer cannot be held liable.

    1. They are no longer in the possession of YGRR. How do they “return” something that is no longer in their possession?

      1. They dont, but they could  allow the “new owners” make this decision. Do you work for SAC or YGRR, or are you connected to either in some way?

  80. Unbelievable—Yankee Golden Ret. Rescue is using these two dogs as their poster children for their upcoming fundraiser. This shows very poor taste and is a disgrace!

    1. Yes they are. And as it appears to be a professionally produced brochure it was proofed and agreed to long before this came up. What would you have them do? Throw out what is likely to be several hundred or perhaps a thousand dollars worth of printing? The Rescue did NOTHING wrong.

      For anyone interested, here is a link to the brochure so you can see for yourself. http://www.ygrr.org/Auction2012/12.02%20YGRRAuction%20Flyer.pdf

      1. You maybe right, but I think YGRR new about this matter before this article. The article states that family called the clinic only two weeks after the dogs went to YGRR  and it is clear that the family got stonewalled. Was the Ellsworth animal clinic and YGRR hoping this would all just go away? The clinic has known since November about this issue, or are you denying that?

        What is disgraceful is  now that YGRR  has a chance to ask the new owners to return the dogs,  they are apparently refusing to do anything.  So now they are doing something wrong. That is shameful.

        1. Let’s assume that everything in the BDN article is 100% accurate. why did the owners wait 5 months to go public with this? When did YGRR learn about the problem?

          I see just as many questions about the actions (or non-actions) of the owners as you and others see about the ACO, vet clinic and YGRR.

          1. Read the article pls:
            —The family said they previously had dealt with another animal control officer in Franklin, Sharon Raybourn, when another dog attacked their pigs a couple of years ago. Raybourn knows Bella and Jake, they said, and would have called them if she had picked up the dogs. They said they did not know that Franklin had another animal control officer until they learned Zwicker was the one who picked up their dogs and took them to Ellsworth. — Just for the record-I have lived here all my life and did NOT know that strays are taken to Ellsworth. ( which horrifies me since I dont even think they LIKE animals there ) Also- they didn’t “wait” 5 months to bring this out- they thought the dogs were gone, it was November when they were lost , after all- we HUNT in this part of the state- and dogs seen in the woods,..well,… they get shot.  They just recently found out about the dogs when reading the once yearly Franklin report.These dogs need to come home. The people who have them need to contact the Warrens. Please. 

        2. Marie Swicker has done the *exact same thing* before to another family (August, 2011):

          She has been reimbursed as ACO to the tune of *thousands* of dollars* in making at least two round trips to Hudson, MA–as well as driving throughout Hancock County (rounding up so-called “strays”–these are purebred dogs, shall we not forget?!

          Not mixed breed mongrels.

          It costs *thousands* of dollars per each trip to Hudson, MA–do the math.

          Zwicker needs a gas hog of a vehicle, in order to transport large dogs within Hancock County–let alone, to Hudson, MA.

          Furthermore, Marie Zwicker certainly isn’t traveling in a small Toyota Prius hybrid!

          Zwicker has personally benefited financially (reimbursed $$$); as has the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth; as well as YGRR (they charge a minimum of $200.00 for “senior” Golden Retriever adoptions; and more for younger Goldens).

          Who has been *devastated*?

          Two families in Hancock County; and that’s what we *are* aware of.

          It’s a long-standing pattern of behavior with her.

          The Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth is complicit (acting as the designated receiving agency for said towns).

          They’re *paid* for boarding so-called “strays,” as well as for whatever other services are provided.

          Why in hell would *any* ACO invest this much time, effort, and expense (which is reimbursed back to Zwicker, mind you) in carting Golden Retrievers all the way to YGRR in Hudson, MA (from Hancock County, ME)???

          I smell payola.

        3. It doesn’t bode well for their upcoming  “fundraiser,” huh?

          They need fiscal, as well as in-kind donations (long before June).

      2. The only good news is “Dottie” & “Dutch’s” YGRR identification numbers are listed on the brochure; and they both should have been tattooed upon admission (as well as a vet, who vaccinated, spayed, and neutered them).

        Nice evidence.

        Let’s kick up the “likes” on Bella & Jake’s Facebook community page, please!

        http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome

        1. Seems that no one likes the following question, what did YGRR do that was wrong or against the law?

          1. It’s not what they did, it’s what they are doing now!! Refusing to cooperate to return these two dogs to their owners who their owners thought were missing.

          2. What many of us see as an example of “what they did wrong” was stonewall. Once they were made aware of this  situation, why not  pass the info  along to the folks who now have the dogs? I don’t see that YGRR is at fault  for  receiving the dogs, though I have questions about   SAC and what money might be involved here, if  the ACO might benefit somehow from  any such arrangement ,does the ACO  uses  spay/neutering status  as a consideration  when deciding what to do once pets are “found”. a lot of questions here.
            The fact that we seem to have quite a few folks”from away” defending these YGRR and the SAC, the efforts being taken to “scub” info off from the internet about these  animals and the actions taken that landed these dogs at the vet in the first place, makes my  interest in  the money aspect of this even greater.

        2.  It’s evidence of responsible ownership. If they tattoo, the new family has a backup ID to their rabies, ID and town tags on their new collars. The new family is not to blame, nor is the rescue. They were given legal custody of the dogs from the ACO(town). The town got custody of the dogs because they were unclaimed stray dogs. The previous owners  should have been at the holding facility with a flyer of their dogs the next day, not two weeks later. Just because the dogs were not there then, was it better to figure they were shot than picked up, still roaming or taken in be another family?

  81. As unfortunate as it is to lose not one pet you love, but two, I have to say the original owners are at fault. If your children and family cherish your dogs so much, why wait so long to discuss the matter? Why instantly assume a hunter may have shot them? There are missing pieces to the story I believe. 

    Proper procedures where followed as mentioned. They waited six days and when nothing was heard, they passed the dogs along. They were taken in by a new family with the intent to find pets. It shouldn’t be the new families job to return their pets because someone neglected to search harder for their “children” to begin with.They are now in a new loving home. It is what it is and its something the old owners need to accept. Don’t own animals if you aren’t going to properly care for them.And if you haven’t noticed those who have posted, its been five months. Not a week, not two weeks….five months. The owners shouldn’t be made to feel guilt for taking in twogoldens when they are doing a kind and loving act by giving them a proper home.

    1. Read the article pls:—The family said they previously had dealt with another animal control officer in Franklin, Sharon Raybourn, when another dog attacked their pigs a couple of years ago. Raybourn knows Bella and Jake, they said, and would have called them if she had picked up the dogs. They said they did not know that Franklin had another animal control officer until they learned Zwicker was the one who picked up their dogs and took them to Ellsworth. — Just for the record-I have lived here all my life and did NOT know that strays are taken to Ellsworth. ( which horrifies me since I don’t even think they LIKE animals there ) Also- they didn’t “wait” 5 months to bring this out- they thought the dogs were gone for good.  They just recently found out about the dogs when reading the once yearly Franklin report.These dogs need to come home. The people who have them need to contact the Warrens. Please. 
      Flag

  82. According to a post (recommendation) on the YGRR facebook page the dogs were renamed Dottie and Dutch.  They made the front cover of the 2012 benefit auction flyer (google to download the flyer with photo).  Hopefully the adoptive family is  now aware of the situation and will consider contacting the Warren family.  

    1. Here’s the “benefit auction” flyer, which is scheduled to take place on Sunday, June 10, 2012 (download it to your computer before YGRR yanks it)!

      I saved one yesterday to my hard drive.

      They’ve scrubbed everything else from their FB page–except photo albums, auction info, and basic contact info.

      The flyer has Bella & Jake’s (aka “Dottie” & “Dutch’s”) YGRR tattoo ID numbers on it.

      http://bit.ly/Ii3xPF

      How *slimy* is using Bella & Jake for advertising purposes?

      Thank you in  advance!

    2. http://bit.ly/Ii3xPF

      The adopting family probably doesn’t have a clue (just yet).

      The local newspaper (on FB) in Hudson, MA indicated that they’re “looking into it.”

      Let’s hope so, because the person or family who adopted “Dottie” & “Dutch” could reside just about *anywhere*!

      Furthermore, even if the adopting folks were ethical and altruistic enough; and returned “Dottie” & “Dutch”, there’s still the $400.00 which they shelled out as an adoption fee–for “seniors” (at a minimum).

      They would need to be refunded **in full**; and absolutely *apologized* to by YGRR.

      http://www.ygrr.org/adopt.html

      This is beyond unconscionable, folks.

      It’s a breach of trust in many respects–makes me ill, just thinking about it.

      Furthermore, Marie Zwicker needs to have her sorry corrupt arse fired, ASAP.

      She was reimbursed (twice) for transporting four Golden Retrievers back and forth from the small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth; as well as back and forth to YGRR Hudson, MA.

      It isn’t the first time Zwicker has pulled this b/s.

      All of which was reimbursed to her.  A very “expensive” proposition, in many respects.

      Fired by whom?

      The Selectboard of Sullivan (where Bella and Jake were presumably “picked up”); as well as by the Selectboard of Franklin.

      The town line where the Warren family lives is very close–if Bella and Jake cut through woods or fields (as a crow flies), it was even closer to Franklin–vs. the two miles which has been quoted (the Warren residence, on Scallop Lane in Franklin).

      Sorry, but dogs don’t understand town lines–they can’t *read* property boundaries & road signs!

      Doh.

      Albee claiming that “nothing can be done about it” is a LIE.

      Zwicker is under the jurisdiction of both municipalities (re: hiring and firing, etc.).

      In addition, she’s the ACO for Sorrento, Hancock, and Lamoine.

      If I was a citizen in any of those towns, I’d be at the town office in a heartbeat–raising HELL!

      Why?

      Anyone’s pet(s) could be next, that’s why.

  83. It’s 283 miles (one way) from the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth, ME; to YGRR’s facility in Hudson, MA, folks.

    Factor in time, labor, vehicular costs, gas, tolls, food, payroll, phone, paperwork, and trips back and forth *within* Hancock County (while pulling this nasty crap by Marie Zwicker)!

    She did the same thing to another family last August!

    Hardly “cost-effective.”

    In any and all respects.

    Google map (driving directions–just the tip of the proverbial iceberg)!

    http://bit.ly/IEq9xD

    Think about it: how would any of you feel, if someone pulled this b/s on YOU?

    …and got away with it, no less.

    Twice in one year (that we’re aware of).

  84. STONEWALLED

    According to the article the dogs are kept at the YRGG kennel for 2 weeks before being adopted. These dogs were probably not even adopted by the new owners when Mrs. Warren called Small Animal Clinic is Ellsworth to inquire if they had her dogs. (The Warrens were monitoring the real animal shelters)

    If they had been adopted out of YRGG before November 23, 2011 the date that Mrs. Warren called the Ellsworth Clinic, the dogs would only have been with the new family less than ONE week, maybe even just a day.

    The time lag is on Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth. I don’t know if the Ellsworth Clinic reached out to YRGG or not, but perhaps a follow story on this issue would shed some light. 

    Nonetheless, the Clinic refused to provide any information to Mrs. Warren.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *