DENVER -- Dogs living in filth.

Dead dogs lying in buckets of food.

And dogs suffering with little access to clean water.

That’s what a group of Coloradans reported to the state program in charge of pet facilities.

Problem is, those Coloradans feel the state essentially ignored their calls for help and left the dogs living in horrible conditions for weeks.

“In all my years of experience I have never seen anything quite this bad,” a whistleblower told CALL7 Investigator Tony Kovaleski.

The whistleblower filed a complaint with the state program known as PACFA, the Pet-Animal Care Facilities Act.

Colorado is one of a limited number of states that regulate pet care facilities.

“I saw animals that were matted so horribly, the hair, the fur was falling out,” said the whistleblower.

The facility the whistleblower is describing is in the western Colorado town of Olathe.

The facility’s license says it’s a dog breeder.

The whistleblower calls it a puppy mill and said, “These poor dogs, all at the gates looking at you like ‘get me out of here please.’”

Vendla Stockdale also filed a complaint, which she said was ignored.

Stockdale said, “It just went on and on and on, and then finally I said I was going to bring in the media and [PACFA] sent somebody out.”

After several calls, e-mails, and pictures exposing the problems, a state inspector visited the facility.

It took 14 days.

A computer analysis by CALL7 Investigators of the state’s process shows, that response time is not unusual.

A complaint filed with PACFA in August 2007 reads, “Appalled at the living conditions of over 100 large breed animals.”

The state inspector checked the facility, 76 days later.

The facility failed inspection, “due to repeat critical violations” but has since updated his kennel operations to meet PACFA standards.

The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, DORA, conducted a review of PACFA in 1999.

In the review of the organization, DORA said, “The goal of the program is to respond to complaints within five days.”

The 7NEWS computer analysis of the past year found it took inspectors an average of 16-days to respond and inspect a facility after a complaint.

That’s more than three times the program’s goal.

“I am very disappointed to hear that. Certainly I believed there was quicker response than that,” said Martha Smith. She is on the advisory committee for PACFA.

Kovaleski asked Smith, “Is that satisfactory?”

She replied, “I don’t think it would be satisfactory under anyone’s definition of satisfactory.”

Kovaleski then asked PACFA Program Administrator Kate Anderson, “Do you know what the response time for PACFA is for the past year?”

Anderson said she did not have that information on hand and PACFA does not actively monitor response times to complaints.

Kovaleski asked, “I am trying to understand if you as the director believe 14 days is satisfactory or unsatisfactory?”

Anderson believed it was satisfactory and said, “[The inspector] did what he was supposed to do in responding by gathering the information initially.”

One issue affecting response time may be that fact that PACFA has only three inspectors to cover the entire state.

The three inspectors cover more than 1,750 facilities.

But Anderson told 7NEWS, “We feel that three inspectors in enough. We operate on a risk-based assessment program so inspectors are able to concentrate their efforts on facilities at a high risk.”

Anderson also said PACFA is completely paid by license fees and right now the organization has more than enough money.

“We are currently well-funded. We have actually decreased on license fees for the 2008 year.”

While Anderson believes her organization is running as expected and with satisfactory response times, some who have complained disagree.

“This needs immediate attention and hopefully people will listen to this and something will be done,” said the whistleblower.