The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the SPCA is Not a State Agency and is not entitled to the defense of sovereign or governmental immunity.
The court upheld a Philadelphia jury's verdict that awarded a women $155,000 from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) after about a dozen dogs taken from her home were euthanized. The dog owner, Laila Snead of Reading, says she's pleased with the decision but nothing will bring her dogs back.
Thank goodness for this ruling. Although Ms.Snead's dogs are gone, it has implications for others whose animals are stolen and disposed of by over-zealous non-profit organizations.
Showing posts with label It could happen to you. Show all posts
Showing posts with label It could happen to you. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
PA: Humane Society takes a dog from a homeless man- and won't return him even after a court order to do so
Good Grief! Give the man his dog back! This man lost his home, his job, his wife and family, and now the HS takes his DOG!!! You have got to be kidding!
What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!
At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew
Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.
Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied.
Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie.
However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.
What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!
At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew
Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.
Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied.
Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie.
However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
TX- SPCA steals livestock while claiming abuse
Community Rallies Around Seized Animals' Owners
The SPCA says the animals were abused, but supporters say the accused is an excellent care giver.
Living things get sick from time to time. If a calf has scours, which is caused by a bacteria or virus- that alone dose not mean the animal is abused. Did any person you know make it through a year without coming down with a cold? Those too are caused by bacteria and viruses. We live in a world full of them.
Chickens that have feather loss? Oh NO! You are kidding! (said in jest)- have you even seen a playground of children with no cuts or scrapes? I hope not- because that is what happens when children interact.
The SPCA is out to steal animals and raise money to end "abuse"- but look carefully- they are the ones doing the abuse- they are abusing power and authority and it is time it is stopped!
The SPCA says the animals were abused, but supporters say the accused is an excellent care giver.
Living things get sick from time to time. If a calf has scours, which is caused by a bacteria or virus- that alone dose not mean the animal is abused. Did any person you know make it through a year without coming down with a cold? Those too are caused by bacteria and viruses. We live in a world full of them.
Chickens that have feather loss? Oh NO! You are kidding! (said in jest)- have you even seen a playground of children with no cuts or scrapes? I hope not- because that is what happens when children interact.
The SPCA is out to steal animals and raise money to end "abuse"- but look carefully- they are the ones doing the abuse- they are abusing power and authority and it is time it is stopped!
NY- Conflict of Interests: Human Societies should not be given authority to seize animals
Here is yet another case of Human Societies stealing animals. Of course it is a conflict of interest to allow shelters to enforce animal cruelty cases- they are the ones who BENEFIT from such cases. Yes- benefit is the right word. Shelters get donations when they cry, "help stop abuse" and they get to SELL (yes, that's right- it is a sale- you don't have the option of NOT donating if you want an animal) the pets they take in. Cover their costs? Maybe, but their costs include staff and a building. Not everyone is a VOLUNTEER. Of course they want to stay in business. They have almost make theft legal- expect that sometimes it smells like a Rat!
Our Towns
A Case of Pet Care and Politics
By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: October 7, 2009
GARRISON, N.Y.
Two things struck many people as odd three years ago when sheriff’s deputies came to Sandy Saunders’s 150-acre farm, said they had found “shocking” conditions, arrested him on nine counts of animal cruelty, and seized five horses, three sheep and a goat that have never been returned.
The first was that the barn owned by Mr. Saunders, a well-known local environmentalist and gadfly, was a popular and quite public gathering place. In the five weeks before the animals were seized, an annual barn dance there brought out perhaps 200 people, and a political fund-raiser drew 150. A woman who had visited with her children said that she had seen dozens of farms and that Mr. Saunders’s was “one of the cleanest and well-maintained I have come across.”
The second was that Barbara Dunn, the deputy who seized the animals and participated in a separate raid and arrest involving the care of purebred Maltese dogs that same month, was also the president of the Putnam Humane Society, where the animals were taken, which struck many people as an unfortunate mixing of responsibilities.
The two arrests set in motion a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the indictment of Deputy Dunn this week on 28 counts, including grand larceny, perjury and official misconduct, some stemming from her testimony in the investigation involving the dogs.
It would be nice if the indictment suggested a clear motivation. Instead, it’s more of a reminder that while politics involving humans can be pretty complicated, they’re nothing compared to the politics of people and critters.
Mr. Saunders’s case had no direct bearing on the indictment, a result of an 18-month investigation. Deputy Dunn was accused of larceny, insurance fraud and official misconduct for claiming workplace injuries when, in fact, she had fallen off a horse, prosecutors say. And she was accused of perjury and official misconduct in connection with her testimony about the seizure of the dogs from Linda Nelson, a breeder in Kent.
Deputy Dunn pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Monday. William Aronwald, her lawyer, said the notion that she was improperly acting in the interests of the Humane Society ignored the evidence. “She took six Maltese dogs that hadn’t been fed, had no water, were sitting in their own excrement from a sweltering, hot room and took them to the Humane Society,” he said. “What other recourse did she have? Just leave them there? I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the Humane Society benefited from this.”
The problem is that a State Supreme Court judge, Justice Andrew P. O’Rourke, in dismissing charges against Ms. Nelson, ruled otherwise, saying: “Deputy Dunn, in her position as president of the Humane Society, engaged in a public campaign to garner support for the renewal of the society’s contract with the county. She increased the number of seizures of animals and sought increased fines for animal-related violations in order to increase the coffers of the Humane Society.”
It’s small potatoes, unless you’re the one accused. In addition to the worthy work that animal protection groups do, there have been allegations elsewhere of animals improperly seized and reputations ruined out of excess zeal. An investigation by “20/20” in 2005 included numerous claims from people who said that instead of helping them care for wanted pets, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confiscated their animals, sold them within days and kept the money.
BUT if that kind of conflict was at work, it didn’t show up in the indictment. Christopher York, the chief assistant district attorney in Putnam County, said he had no way of knowing if any improprieties in Deputy Dunn’s conduct were affected by excess zeal for animal rights, the interests of the Humane Society or a belief that she was acting properly. “We don’t have to prove motivation,” he said.
Still, regardless of whether she’s found guilty, you could deduce three things. The first is that an accusation of animal abuse can be as damaging as one of child abuse. Mr. Saunders found himself reported on animal abuse Web sites. (He agreed to give up the animals in return for the dismissal of the charges against him.) The second is that being on the side of the animals doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the side of the angels. And the third is that giving the president of the local Humane Society a badge and a license to investigate animal abuse isn’t the smartest move.
E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
Our Towns
A Case of Pet Care and Politics
By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: October 7, 2009
GARRISON, N.Y.
Two things struck many people as odd three years ago when sheriff’s deputies came to Sandy Saunders’s 150-acre farm, said they had found “shocking” conditions, arrested him on nine counts of animal cruelty, and seized five horses, three sheep and a goat that have never been returned.
The first was that the barn owned by Mr. Saunders, a well-known local environmentalist and gadfly, was a popular and quite public gathering place. In the five weeks before the animals were seized, an annual barn dance there brought out perhaps 200 people, and a political fund-raiser drew 150. A woman who had visited with her children said that she had seen dozens of farms and that Mr. Saunders’s was “one of the cleanest and well-maintained I have come across.”
The second was that Barbara Dunn, the deputy who seized the animals and participated in a separate raid and arrest involving the care of purebred Maltese dogs that same month, was also the president of the Putnam Humane Society, where the animals were taken, which struck many people as an unfortunate mixing of responsibilities.
The two arrests set in motion a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the indictment of Deputy Dunn this week on 28 counts, including grand larceny, perjury and official misconduct, some stemming from her testimony in the investigation involving the dogs.
It would be nice if the indictment suggested a clear motivation. Instead, it’s more of a reminder that while politics involving humans can be pretty complicated, they’re nothing compared to the politics of people and critters.
Mr. Saunders’s case had no direct bearing on the indictment, a result of an 18-month investigation. Deputy Dunn was accused of larceny, insurance fraud and official misconduct for claiming workplace injuries when, in fact, she had fallen off a horse, prosecutors say. And she was accused of perjury and official misconduct in connection with her testimony about the seizure of the dogs from Linda Nelson, a breeder in Kent.
Deputy Dunn pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Monday. William Aronwald, her lawyer, said the notion that she was improperly acting in the interests of the Humane Society ignored the evidence. “She took six Maltese dogs that hadn’t been fed, had no water, were sitting in their own excrement from a sweltering, hot room and took them to the Humane Society,” he said. “What other recourse did she have? Just leave them there? I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the Humane Society benefited from this.”
The problem is that a State Supreme Court judge, Justice Andrew P. O’Rourke, in dismissing charges against Ms. Nelson, ruled otherwise, saying: “Deputy Dunn, in her position as president of the Humane Society, engaged in a public campaign to garner support for the renewal of the society’s contract with the county. She increased the number of seizures of animals and sought increased fines for animal-related violations in order to increase the coffers of the Humane Society.”
It’s small potatoes, unless you’re the one accused. In addition to the worthy work that animal protection groups do, there have been allegations elsewhere of animals improperly seized and reputations ruined out of excess zeal. An investigation by “20/20” in 2005 included numerous claims from people who said that instead of helping them care for wanted pets, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confiscated their animals, sold them within days and kept the money.
BUT if that kind of conflict was at work, it didn’t show up in the indictment. Christopher York, the chief assistant district attorney in Putnam County, said he had no way of knowing if any improprieties in Deputy Dunn’s conduct were affected by excess zeal for animal rights, the interests of the Humane Society or a belief that she was acting properly. “We don’t have to prove motivation,” he said.
Still, regardless of whether she’s found guilty, you could deduce three things. The first is that an accusation of animal abuse can be as damaging as one of child abuse. Mr. Saunders found himself reported on animal abuse Web sites. (He agreed to give up the animals in return for the dismissal of the charges against him.) The second is that being on the side of the animals doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the side of the angels. And the third is that giving the president of the local Humane Society a badge and a license to investigate animal abuse isn’t the smartest move.
E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sophie's (ur.... Wendy's) Choice- a modern day, dilemna of powerful forces enforcing personal agendas
Sophie's Choice in Philadelphia
(author unknow at the moment- it will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Wendy Willard, a retired school teacher and MBH of the Murder Hollow Bassets, kennels her hounds in a barn near her house located inside a 340-acre nature preserve, the largest single privately-owned parcel of land within the city limits of Philadelphia.
On Monday, July 27, seven officers from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, the Philadelphia Police, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), in as many vehicles, staged a full-scale raid on Murder Hollow's kennels apparently in an unsuccessful search for an illegal dog breeding operation.
Murder Hollow had, at the time, ten and 1/2 couple of hounds, and Ms. Willard was additionally keeping two aged and retired bassets in her house. The Commonwealth Dog Law Enforcement officers found no illegal kennels under state law, and took their leave, but PSPCA "Humane Law Officers" accused Wendy Willard of being in violation of Philadelphia's Animal Control Code, which requires a waiver from the Department of Public Health for the keeping of more than 12 dogs or cats in "a residential dwelling unit."
Wendy Willard had found on her front door a card from PSPCA containing no message a few days prior to the raid. On Monday, the authorities arrived again and requested entry, then returned promptly equipped with a warrant after being initially turned away.
In subsequent reports by PSPCA, no mention of a search for a dog kennel violating state law, which according to Jessie Smith, Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, was the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement's basis for obtaining the search warrant used to gain entry to the Murder Hollow property, was ever made. The raid, featuring seven officers from three official organizations with five trucks and two police cars, according to PSPCA's later statements, was simply occasioned by a (never identified) neighbor complaining of dogs barking.
PSPCA Humane Officer Tara Loller proceeded to present Wendy Willard with the kind of cruel dilemma depicted in William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice. In the novel (made into a 1982 film starring Meryl Streep), a young Polish mother sent to Auschwitz is forced by a sadistic Nazi doctor to choose which of her two children she will be allowed to keep and which will be immediately gassed.
"They are my family," a distraught Willard said of her dogs,รข€ reported the Philadelphia Daily News on August 7th.
Loller demanded that Wendy Willard immediately surrender eleven hounds, reducing the number on her property to twelve (and agree to have all but four of those remaining neutered), or Willard was warned, PSPCA would take all her hounds. "We can give you enough citations to take your house," the PSPCA officers boasted to Willard.
According to a one former PSPCA humane officer, quoted in a story in the Pocono Record last December, this kind of tactic is a standard part of PSPCA humane officer training statewide. "We were taught to intimidate people into giving their animals up. We were told to tell them "in lieu of charges, surrender your animals." Some former officers told the Record that they were given a quota of surrendered animals to fill, and that humane officers' annual bonus payments were dependent on meeting their quotas. In order to persuade animal owners to sign surrender documents, PSPCA Humane Officers are evidently not above lying.
Three of the hounds on Wendy Willard's property had come from the Sandanona Hare Hounds of Millbrook, New York. Sandanona's Master Betsy Park , specifically in order to avoid any of her hounds ever falling into the hands of an animal shelter, makes a policy of retaining title to any hounds drafted, given as stud fees, or retired from her pack. With any hound originating from Sandanona comes a contract requiring its return to Mrs. Park in the event that it can no longer be cared for at its new home. The PSPC A officers assured Wendy Willard that Betsy Park would be able to reclaim her hounds after their surrender. She would, naturally, have "first claim" to their new adoption. There was, of course, no truth whatsoever in those assurances, but they led Wendy Willard to believe that unlucky Sappho, Anxious, and Harlem would have a better chance of being recovered.
PSPCA, in the case of pedigreed dogs like the Murder Hollow Bassets, channels them into a breed-oriented rescue system, which houses them in private foster homes, and then distributes the basset hounds to new owners in exchange for a $200 adoption fee. Less desirable animals, "rescued" by PSPCA after a 72 hour hold time are simply euthanized.
PSPCA in its press releases has repeatedly claimed the eleven bassets taken had been transferred to foster care by a partner rescue organization. Apparently, however, this is not the case. I personally contacted basset rescue organizations last weekend, trying to identify the location of the seized hounds. The director of adoptions at the regional rescue organization told me he had been scheduled to receive 10 of the bassets taken from Murder Hollow, but that the transfer had been cancelled, and the hounds "frozen" and "locked down" in the PSPCA holding facility as "evidence" is a case now considered under dispute.
Evidently, either efforts by Sandanona to recover their three hounds, or discussion and criticism of the Murder Hollow raid on a variety of dog-breed-oriented bulletin boards on the Internet beginning about the same time early last week was deemed sufficient by PSPCA to cause the animal welfare organization to move to the defensive. As a news report on a similar PSPCA case observes, whenever there is a legal challenge to PSPCA, the confiscated animals become live evidence, and will be kept in storage cages for months, and sometimes years, while court cases drag on. Animals whose ownership is under dispute will not be transferred for adoption.
It may not be completely coincidental that the PSPCA additionally stopped applauding Wendy Willard for "working to clean and improve the kennels" or being "encouraged by her efforts," but instead was disappointed to find on upon its Friday, August 7th follow-up inspection that "overall living conditions remained poor" resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking.
The raid on the Murder Hollow kennels and PSPCA's policies, operations, and behavior in the present case have been widely criticized on the Internet and by field sports organizations rallying to Wendy Willard's defense.
William E. Bobbitt, Jr., president of the registry and organizational authority for hunting basset packs, wrote:
"Wendy Willard hasmaintained a pack of Basset Hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club of America since 1989. She frequently brings her hounds to the Institute Farm to compete in the Basset Pack Trials held there and her hounds are always fit and well cared for. In fact, she treats her hounds like family members. We want to support Wendy in her efforts to maintain the 6 couple of hounds that remain with her, but we also have great concern for the welfare of the hounds which were seized and taken.
There are Basset packs that are willing and anxious to take those hounds in and provide them with good hunting homes, which is what they are used to, and we hope that the PSPCA will cooperate in making these placements possible, instead of keeping the hounds confined in cages at a holding facility."
Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (USA, ret.), Executive Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association of America, the senior scenthound organization in the United States, called the PSPCA's actions "a travesty." He described the confiscation of Murder Hollow's hounds as "a classic example of a government agency going out of bounds." Foster dismissed the PSPCA's charges against Ms. Willard and described their subsequent handling of the Murder Hollow bassets as recognizable as the "behavior of people who do not understand hounds."
(This article will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
(author unknow at the moment- it will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Wendy Willard, a retired school teacher and MBH of the Murder Hollow Bassets, kennels her hounds in a barn near her house located inside a 340-acre nature preserve, the largest single privately-owned parcel of land within the city limits of Philadelphia.
On Monday, July 27, seven officers from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, the Philadelphia Police, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), in as many vehicles, staged a full-scale raid on Murder Hollow's kennels apparently in an unsuccessful search for an illegal dog breeding operation.
Murder Hollow had, at the time, ten and 1/2 couple of hounds, and Ms. Willard was additionally keeping two aged and retired bassets in her house. The Commonwealth Dog Law Enforcement officers found no illegal kennels under state law, and took their leave, but PSPCA "Humane Law Officers" accused Wendy Willard of being in violation of Philadelphia's Animal Control Code, which requires a waiver from the Department of Public Health for the keeping of more than 12 dogs or cats in "a residential dwelling unit."
Wendy Willard had found on her front door a card from PSPCA containing no message a few days prior to the raid. On Monday, the authorities arrived again and requested entry, then returned promptly equipped with a warrant after being initially turned away.
In subsequent reports by PSPCA, no mention of a search for a dog kennel violating state law, which according to Jessie Smith, Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, was the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement's basis for obtaining the search warrant used to gain entry to the Murder Hollow property, was ever made. The raid, featuring seven officers from three official organizations with five trucks and two police cars, according to PSPCA's later statements, was simply occasioned by a (never identified) neighbor complaining of dogs barking.
PSPCA Humane Officer Tara Loller proceeded to present Wendy Willard with the kind of cruel dilemma depicted in William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice. In the novel (made into a 1982 film starring Meryl Streep), a young Polish mother sent to Auschwitz is forced by a sadistic Nazi doctor to choose which of her two children she will be allowed to keep and which will be immediately gassed.
"They are my family," a distraught Willard said of her dogs,รข€ reported the Philadelphia Daily News on August 7th.
Loller demanded that Wendy Willard immediately surrender eleven hounds, reducing the number on her property to twelve (and agree to have all but four of those remaining neutered), or Willard was warned, PSPCA would take all her hounds. "We can give you enough citations to take your house," the PSPCA officers boasted to Willard.
According to a one former PSPCA humane officer, quoted in a story in the Pocono Record last December, this kind of tactic is a standard part of PSPCA humane officer training statewide. "We were taught to intimidate people into giving their animals up. We were told to tell them "in lieu of charges, surrender your animals." Some former officers told the Record that they were given a quota of surrendered animals to fill, and that humane officers' annual bonus payments were dependent on meeting their quotas. In order to persuade animal owners to sign surrender documents, PSPCA Humane Officers are evidently not above lying.
Three of the hounds on Wendy Willard's property had come from the Sandanona Hare Hounds of Millbrook, New York. Sandanona's Master Betsy Park , specifically in order to avoid any of her hounds ever falling into the hands of an animal shelter, makes a policy of retaining title to any hounds drafted, given as stud fees, or retired from her pack. With any hound originating from Sandanona comes a contract requiring its return to Mrs. Park in the event that it can no longer be cared for at its new home. The PSPC A officers assured Wendy Willard that Betsy Park would be able to reclaim her hounds after their surrender. She would, naturally, have "first claim" to their new adoption. There was, of course, no truth whatsoever in those assurances, but they led Wendy Willard to believe that unlucky Sappho, Anxious, and Harlem would have a better chance of being recovered.
PSPCA, in the case of pedigreed dogs like the Murder Hollow Bassets, channels them into a breed-oriented rescue system, which houses them in private foster homes, and then distributes the basset hounds to new owners in exchange for a $200 adoption fee. Less desirable animals, "rescued" by PSPCA after a 72 hour hold time are simply euthanized.
PSPCA in its press releases has repeatedly claimed the eleven bassets taken had been transferred to foster care by a partner rescue organization. Apparently, however, this is not the case. I personally contacted basset rescue organizations last weekend, trying to identify the location of the seized hounds. The director of adoptions at the regional rescue organization told me he had been scheduled to receive 10 of the bassets taken from Murder Hollow, but that the transfer had been cancelled, and the hounds "frozen" and "locked down" in the PSPCA holding facility as "evidence" is a case now considered under dispute.
Evidently, either efforts by Sandanona to recover their three hounds, or discussion and criticism of the Murder Hollow raid on a variety of dog-breed-oriented bulletin boards on the Internet beginning about the same time early last week was deemed sufficient by PSPCA to cause the animal welfare organization to move to the defensive. As a news report on a similar PSPCA case observes, whenever there is a legal challenge to PSPCA, the confiscated animals become live evidence, and will be kept in storage cages for months, and sometimes years, while court cases drag on. Animals whose ownership is under dispute will not be transferred for adoption.
It may not be completely coincidental that the PSPCA additionally stopped applauding Wendy Willard for "working to clean and improve the kennels" or being "encouraged by her efforts," but instead was disappointed to find on upon its Friday, August 7th follow-up inspection that "overall living conditions remained poor" resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking.
The raid on the Murder Hollow kennels and PSPCA's policies, operations, and behavior in the present case have been widely criticized on the Internet and by field sports organizations rallying to Wendy Willard's defense.
William E. Bobbitt, Jr., president of the registry and organizational authority for hunting basset packs, wrote:
"Wendy Willard hasmaintained a pack of Basset Hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club of America since 1989. She frequently brings her hounds to the Institute Farm to compete in the Basset Pack Trials held there and her hounds are always fit and well cared for. In fact, she treats her hounds like family members. We want to support Wendy in her efforts to maintain the 6 couple of hounds that remain with her, but we also have great concern for the welfare of the hounds which were seized and taken.
There are Basset packs that are willing and anxious to take those hounds in and provide them with good hunting homes, which is what they are used to, and we hope that the PSPCA will cooperate in making these placements possible, instead of keeping the hounds confined in cages at a holding facility."
Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (USA, ret.), Executive Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association of America, the senior scenthound organization in the United States, called the PSPCA's actions "a travesty." He described the confiscation of Murder Hollow's hounds as "a classic example of a government agency going out of bounds." Foster dismissed the PSPCA's charges against Ms. Willard and described their subsequent handling of the Murder Hollow bassets as recognizable as the "behavior of people who do not understand hounds."
(This article will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Friday, July 17, 2009
AZ- She should have had them Debarked!
Woman gets 3 years' probation, $940 fine for barking dogs
by Jenna Davis - Jul. 15, 2009 12:29 PM
The Arizona Republic
Renee Maurer was sentenced to three years' probation and a $940 fine charge today in Phoenix Municipal Court for allowing her dogs to disturb the peace of her Northeast neighborhood.
Several neighbors filed a petition earlier this year to have Maurer prosecuted in court for her barking Pomeranian and miniature poodle.
Neighbors testified in court on Monday that the dogs have barked constantly for the last three years. Immediately following the sentencing, Maurer filed for appeal.
The Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.
Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurers' two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.
Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and her neighbors.
"I feel ostracized in my own community," said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be "extremely awkward and uncomfortable."
Certa also expressed sentiments about the situation.
"I feel bad," said Certa. "It's always the same-after an hour I have a new case and my life will go on. But these people have to live next door to each other."
Certa said she didn't want Maurer to face jail time, but thought her sentence was "appropriate," because "the case came down to being a good neighbor."
Certa said many barking-dog cases have gone through her courtroom in the past 10 years, but she couldn't give an exact number.
The maximum sentence for violating the barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and a misdemeanor charge.
Municipal Court records show most fines are $300 or less, and there is no indication that anyone was ever sent to jail for owning a barking dog. Seventy-five dog owners were prosecuted in Phoenix last year.
2005 law in Phoenix states: "No person shall keep a dog within the city limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the city."
Maurer's predicament mirrors similar barking-dog conflicts across the Valley: Anxious or lonely dogs bark incessantly, causing tempers to flare and neighbors to use city noise ordinances.
After Maurer received a note about her dogs from an angry neighbor last year, she tried a training class and a bark-deterrent device for her dogs.
The notes persisted from Ilona Hirsch and her boyfriend Robert Shaw, neighbors Maurer had never met. Maurer and Shaw exchanged several phone calls about her dogs.
In February a police officer told Maurer that a criminal complaint had been filed against her.
Hirsch and Shaw had gathered signatures from five other neighbors who were also bothered by the dogs - a step required before criminal charges can be filed, city records show. Phoenix requires at least three signatures on a petition. Hirsch decline to comment on the case.
Later, two neighbors recalled their signatures after they realized Maurer was facing criminal charges.
Hirsch also had a log of times when the dogs were barking. The log, introduced as evidence in court, indicates Maurer's dogs barked for 7 1/2 hours at one time
by Jenna Davis - Jul. 15, 2009 12:29 PM
The Arizona Republic
Renee Maurer was sentenced to three years' probation and a $940 fine charge today in Phoenix Municipal Court for allowing her dogs to disturb the peace of her Northeast neighborhood.
Several neighbors filed a petition earlier this year to have Maurer prosecuted in court for her barking Pomeranian and miniature poodle.
Neighbors testified in court on Monday that the dogs have barked constantly for the last three years. Immediately following the sentencing, Maurer filed for appeal.
The Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.
Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurers' two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.
Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and her neighbors.
"I feel ostracized in my own community," said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be "extremely awkward and uncomfortable."
Certa also expressed sentiments about the situation.
"I feel bad," said Certa. "It's always the same-after an hour I have a new case and my life will go on. But these people have to live next door to each other."
Certa said she didn't want Maurer to face jail time, but thought her sentence was "appropriate," because "the case came down to being a good neighbor."
Certa said many barking-dog cases have gone through her courtroom in the past 10 years, but she couldn't give an exact number.
The maximum sentence for violating the barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and a misdemeanor charge.
Municipal Court records show most fines are $300 or less, and there is no indication that anyone was ever sent to jail for owning a barking dog. Seventy-five dog owners were prosecuted in Phoenix last year.
2005 law in Phoenix states: "No person shall keep a dog within the city limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the city."
Maurer's predicament mirrors similar barking-dog conflicts across the Valley: Anxious or lonely dogs bark incessantly, causing tempers to flare and neighbors to use city noise ordinances.
After Maurer received a note about her dogs from an angry neighbor last year, she tried a training class and a bark-deterrent device for her dogs.
The notes persisted from Ilona Hirsch and her boyfriend Robert Shaw, neighbors Maurer had never met. Maurer and Shaw exchanged several phone calls about her dogs.
In February a police officer told Maurer that a criminal complaint had been filed against her.
Hirsch and Shaw had gathered signatures from five other neighbors who were also bothered by the dogs - a step required before criminal charges can be filed, city records show. Phoenix requires at least three signatures on a petition. Hirsch decline to comment on the case.
Later, two neighbors recalled their signatures after they realized Maurer was facing criminal charges.
Hirsch also had a log of times when the dogs were barking. The log, introduced as evidence in court, indicates Maurer's dogs barked for 7 1/2 hours at one time
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
CA- "Forcible entry" GRANTED
“FORCIBLE ENTRY” GRANTED….. Orange County, CA dog Owner
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.
It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.
IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:
“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”
What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?
Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.
This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!
It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.
SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!
And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.
It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.
IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:
“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”
What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?
Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.
This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!
It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.
SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!
And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Breeder of Vice President Biden's puppy received death threats from animal activists
http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/04/09/news/srv0000005068031.txt
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This was left as a comment on Canada-Ontario's Animal Protection Law The strongest- but this could happen to you!
Hi, my name is Elisa Antonacci and I live in a condominium with my mother and 3 other siblings. We moved in with 2 dogs, cookie and bella. We have currenlty been sent to court to have our dogs removed because they have been deemed a "neusence". We won the first time then lost the second. The court has orderd the dogs to be permently removed; we have no money for lawyers. Bella is safe in a home but before we could find a place for cookie the ospca and a sheriff came to take her away. 5 days later I tried to see cookie but they didn't aloow it. They said that cookie was doing horrible and she wasn't eating and very very terrified. We found a temperary home for her but we are soon to be at the end of our road and dont know what to do. I am very certain that if we do give her up she will die. We are all that she has and all that she knows; we love her with all of our heart and dont know what to do! if you have any input on this situation please help' it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Monday, March 23, 2009
20/20 Documetary "Cruelty to Owners"
Thank you ABC for doing the work to show EVERYONE that YES!!! Some SPCAs DO Steal Dogs. It is a conflict of interest that any SPCA be able to confiscate animals and then SELL them.
In TX the SPCA worker makes $80,000!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 1
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWP_wXfkO78&feature=related
In TX the SPCA worker makes $80,000!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 1
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWP_wXfkO78&feature=related
Friday, February 27, 2009
NC- HSUS is removing dogs from breeders
Here is a story written by an employee of HSUS. There are no pictures and the "public" who reads this story will just assume it is true. Here are the "Buzz Words" that HSUS uses to gain public support:
How they descibe breeders:
"mass breeding facility"
"overcrowded breeding facilities"
"living in substandard conditions"
"overwhelmed property owner"
How they describe themselves (HSUS):
"introduce legislation that will help to put an end to the cruel puppy mill industry in our state"
"extremely rewarding to see these animals begin a new, happy chapter of their lives"
"soon be living as cherished family pets"
"make the journey to their new temporary homes in The HSUS’ specially equipped animal transport vehicle"
Note: 1. the source of the complaint was Anonymous
2. There are no mention of any charges being brought up against the owner
3. There is no evidence of "intentional" abuse- but they were not very clear if there was even evidence of abuse at all. Since no charges are mentioned, one has to assume that there was no evidence of abuse at all
4. This was not the second time at THIS facility- it was the SECOND "takings" of people's property (their dogs)
5. Many people, when faced with law enforcement at their door, don't know what to do at the time, and then only afterwards to they attempt to get help. That attempt will not be reported by HSUS- and maybe not even by the local paper- as this story is carried by the local paper.
Dogs Rescued from Overcrowed Facility
Jordan Crump
The Humane Society of the United States
Published: February 26, 2009
KINSTON, N.C. (Feb. 26, 2009) – Fifty dogs have been removed from a Lenoir County breeding facility thanks to the efforts of The Humane Society of the United States, the Lenoir County Health Department, the Lenoir County SPCA and Wayne County Animal Control. Rescuers were able to remove the 50 small-breed dogs after local officials convinced the property owner to voluntarily shut down his facility.
“This is the second time in a month that The Humane Society of the United States has rescued dogs from a mass breeding facility in North Carolina. These cases represent just a fraction of the overcrowded breeding facilities throughout the state,” said Amanda Arrington, North Carolina state director for The HSUS. “We will soon introduce legislation that will help to put an end to the cruel puppy mill industry in our state.”
The dogs were found living in substandard conditions in outdoor pens throughout the property. Local officials inspected the property after receiving an anonymous complaint and found no evidence of intentional abuse, but the overwhelmed property owner voluntarily surrendered the animals. The property owner then signed a contract with local officials barring him from breeding any dogs in the future. The Lenoir County Health Department then called in The HSUS for assistance in removing the dogs from the property, finding them placement in regional rescue groups and transporting them to their new temporary homes at shelters.
“It is extremely rewarding to see these animals begin a new, happy chapter of their lives. I am hopeful that they will soon be living as cherished family pets,” said Joey Huff, director of the Lenoir County Health Department.
These dogs will make the journey to their new temporary homes in The HSUS’ specially equipped animal transport vehicle. They will be taken in by the Richmond SPCA and the Washington Animal Rescue League where they will be evaluated and placed for adoption.
How they descibe breeders:
"mass breeding facility"
"overcrowded breeding facilities"
"living in substandard conditions"
"overwhelmed property owner"
How they describe themselves (HSUS):
"introduce legislation that will help to put an end to the cruel puppy mill industry in our state"
"extremely rewarding to see these animals begin a new, happy chapter of their lives"
"soon be living as cherished family pets"
"make the journey to their new temporary homes in The HSUS’ specially equipped animal transport vehicle"
Note: 1. the source of the complaint was Anonymous
2. There are no mention of any charges being brought up against the owner
3. There is no evidence of "intentional" abuse- but they were not very clear if there was even evidence of abuse at all. Since no charges are mentioned, one has to assume that there was no evidence of abuse at all
4. This was not the second time at THIS facility- it was the SECOND "takings" of people's property (their dogs)
5. Many people, when faced with law enforcement at their door, don't know what to do at the time, and then only afterwards to they attempt to get help. That attempt will not be reported by HSUS- and maybe not even by the local paper- as this story is carried by the local paper.
Dogs Rescued from Overcrowed Facility
Jordan Crump
The Humane Society of the United States
Published: February 26, 2009
KINSTON, N.C. (Feb. 26, 2009) – Fifty dogs have been removed from a Lenoir County breeding facility thanks to the efforts of The Humane Society of the United States, the Lenoir County Health Department, the Lenoir County SPCA and Wayne County Animal Control. Rescuers were able to remove the 50 small-breed dogs after local officials convinced the property owner to voluntarily shut down his facility.
“This is the second time in a month that The Humane Society of the United States has rescued dogs from a mass breeding facility in North Carolina. These cases represent just a fraction of the overcrowded breeding facilities throughout the state,” said Amanda Arrington, North Carolina state director for The HSUS. “We will soon introduce legislation that will help to put an end to the cruel puppy mill industry in our state.”
The dogs were found living in substandard conditions in outdoor pens throughout the property. Local officials inspected the property after receiving an anonymous complaint and found no evidence of intentional abuse, but the overwhelmed property owner voluntarily surrendered the animals. The property owner then signed a contract with local officials barring him from breeding any dogs in the future. The Lenoir County Health Department then called in The HSUS for assistance in removing the dogs from the property, finding them placement in regional rescue groups and transporting them to their new temporary homes at shelters.
“It is extremely rewarding to see these animals begin a new, happy chapter of their lives. I am hopeful that they will soon be living as cherished family pets,” said Joey Huff, director of the Lenoir County Health Department.
These dogs will make the journey to their new temporary homes in The HSUS’ specially equipped animal transport vehicle. They will be taken in by the Richmond SPCA and the Washington Animal Rescue League where they will be evaluated and placed for adoption.
SC-Prized hound dies in Shelter Dispute
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Prized hound dies in shelter dispute
Decision to euthanize Big Hitter could be symbol of troubles that imperil the sport
By DAWN HINSHAW - dhinshaw@thestate.com
On a clear and frosty morning in late December, Big Hitter, a 5-year-old foxhound who hadn’t been in the woods for weeks, caught a scent and took off running.
He was fast.
His owner, Arnold Jones of St. George, had arrived for a dog drive at the Kingville Hunt Club in Lower Richland near 6 a.m. that Saturday, meeting up with about 35 guys and 50 hunting dogs.
When Hitter hadn’t returned by 10 a.m., it was clear he had gotten into the Congaree Swamp.
The 6,000-acre hunt club is adjacent to the expansive national park, so it’s not unusual for dogs to chase deer into the swamp and keep on going.
What Jones couldn’t know then was that Hitter — who he’d bought for $750 and expected to produce a line of valuable offspring — would walk for four days and 20 miles, looking for his master, before ending up at the Columbia Animal Shelter.
There, he would die in a dispute over a city law requiring that dogs be neutered before being returned to their owners.
The death of this tricolor foxhound — something that probably would have been unheard of not long ago — has created a stir among hunters.
“There’s rules, surely,” said Trevor Bedell of West Columbia, who helped Jones try to retrieve Hitter, since his hunting buddy lives out of town. “But the animal shelter’s mission should be to protect the dog, when we were making efforts to get the dog.”
Interim city manager Steve Gantt said Hitter’s owners didn’t get to the shelter within the timeline spelled out to them.
“It’s a bad situation all the way around,” said Gantt, who hunted with hounds as a kid in Chester.
CHANGING CULTURE
Hitter could be a symbol for a Southern tradition that’s fading — hunters using dogs to flush deer from the woods, starting a fast and furious chase into the sights of waiting hunters.
It’s a way of hunting passed down in South Carolina families for generations.
But in recent years, the tradition has created bad blood among dog hunters, the more common “still” hunters and landowners.
Large tracts of property required for dog drives are being cut up and developed. The number of hunt clubs is dwindling, too, creating more situations where hunters clash.
Sometimes, dogs tracking a deer will run beyond the boundaries of a hunt club and onto private property, passing a hunter silently waiting in a deer stand.
Jones, who owns 35 to 40 dogs that he uses to hunt big bucks as trophies, can’t imagine hunting any other way.
“There is nothing more exciting than 25 hounds running the deer right at you,” said Jones, 46. “Your heart goes pounding in your chest. It’s an adrenaline rush, to have game coming at you that fast, and you have a matter of seconds to even try to shoot.”
Frank A. Boysia hunts on 3,000 acres he and his father own in Lee and Sumter counties. They farm and participate in wildlife programs that provide habitat for deer and quail.
But Boysia said trespassing dogs disrupt the “good and natural experience” he pursues outdoors.
“I’m sitting there in a peaceful situation with my son on a deer stand, in a food plot that I’ve planted — with my money, with my labor and my love,” said Boysia, 40. “It ruins your whole reason for even having property like that.
“So for me, it’s a property rights issue.”
HUNTING FOR HITTER
Hunters usually look for lost dogs along roads.
That’s because foxhounds know to wait there, said Charles Ruth, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources.
“They’re going to be out standing by the road, looking for their owner. A lot of time, they’ll start walking the road because they can relate the road to the truck to the man.”
That’s how Hitter would have ended up in Columbia.
The Saturday of the hunt, Jones went home to Dorchester County. Bedell, 31, said he drove down Bluff Road and through Lower Richland on each of the next three days, looking for Hitter.
The next day, Christmas Eve, Hitter wandered into Columbia’s Granby Park, his tracking collar and I.D. tag still fastened around his neck.
A city park ranger called the phone number on the tag and left a message for Jones, then called the Columbia Animal Shelter.
RURAL CULTURE, URBAN LAWS
Animal control laws in Columbia don’t acknowledge the tradition of hunting with dogs.
In Columbia, lost pets must be neutered before they can be returned to the owners with three exceptions — if they are sick dogs, show dogs, or guide dogs for the blind.
The spay-neuter program is the foundation of the shelter’s efforts to reduce the number of unwanted animals.
If a hunting dog steps outside the city limits into unincorporated Richland County, the law is different.
In more rural Richland County, owners of hunting dogs can take their dogs home without sterilization if they have a valid hunting license.
Richland County administrator Milton Pope said the dual policies make sense. People are allowed to hunt in the county, not in the city.
Years ago, a debate over whether to require hunting dogs to be spayed or neutered was among the sticking points in efforts to merge city and county animal control operations.
It was no longer an issue when the two jurisdictions decided last year to join programs under one roof — at the Columbia shelter.
The merger will occur in coming weeks. Gantt, the assistant city manager, said this might be a good time to compare policies and see whether they should fall more closely in line.
Still, Marli Drum, the shelter director, doesn’t anticipate problems keeping track of which animals are picked up in the city and which are picked up in the county.
Addresses are logged and city limits lines checked with care, she said, in part to ensure the city doesn’t foot the bill for any animal not in its jurisdiction.
‘A WELL-KNOWN HOUND’
The city’s neutering requirement was a big bone of contention once Jones and Bedell discovered the dog had been taken to the city shelter.
They did not want the dog neutered.
While Bedell had sold the dog to Jones, he said he retained breeding rights.
Jones said Drum first told him the dog had to be neutered, then agreed to accept proof that he had placed in four national trials — documentation that was hard to find during the holidays surrounding Christmas and New Year’s.
“A lot of people knew the dog,” Jones said. “He was a well-known hound. He came from champions.”
Jones collected what proof he could and faxed it to Bedell. Bedell acknowledged he never turned the paperwork over to Drum, saying the documents weren’t what she wanted.
In an interview, Drum said she didn’t have permission to discuss the case but would talk generally about procedures. The city also provided a Jan. 6 memo outlining her recollection of events, under the subject line, “EUTHANIZED DOG.”
Under city policy, lost or stray dogs are held for five days, Drum said. If they have tags, they are kept for two weeks. Once the owner is reached, however, the five-day hold begins.
Bedell said he went by the shelter once and called twice, trying to bring Hitter home.
The last time he called Drum was on Friday, Jan. 2, nine days after Hitter was picked up.
Bedell said he told Drum he planned to adopt the dog once Hitter became available to the public for adoption.
Drum’s memo said she explained he couldn’t adopt the dog just to get around paying the redemption fees, and that she reiterated the dog would have to be neutered.
The following Monday, Bedell went to the shelter only to find that Hitter had been put down, one of 43 dogs to be euthanized Jan. 5.
Drum’s memo said Hitter had developed kennel cough, a contagious infection. “Because of this, the dog could not be held any longer,” she wrote. “To do so would have put many other dogs at risk.”
Just last week, Bedell showed up at the shelter looking to help a friend, Lee Gross, retrieve his lost hunting dog.
The dog had been picked up in Richland County, around Hopkins, and was released to his owner after he produced a hunting license.
“There’s got to be some consistency,” Bedell complained.
“I don’t see how they can be executioner on one and let the other go with a ... hunting license.”
END OF THE HUNT?
Hunting with dogs is part of the culture of the Southeast, from Virginia to Arkansas, said the DNR’s Ruth.
In South Carolina, dog drives are allowed only in the 28 counties where it has the foothold of history, from Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties south and east toward the coast.
But deer hunting with dogs has declined over the past 20 to 30 years, part of an overall change in the number of people who hunt, according to DNR figures.
After peaking in 1980 at 203,170, the number of South Carolinians who took out hunting licenses bottomed out in 2006 at 154,078.
With tensions rising among hunters, legislators, led by Sen. Yancey McGill, D-Williamsburg, are trying to mediate.
Calhoun County Sheriff Thomas Summers said two or three hunting dogs were shot to death in the woods a couple of years ago in a sign of the growing rift among hunters.
And a couple of “nuisance” lawsuits have been filed against dog owners in the absence of laws to regulate dog drives.
The Legislature stepped in last year, asking DNR to arrange a series of meetings in hopes of reaching agreement among hunters. “We did not come to a consensus,” Ruth said.
Hal Goodwin, whose family started the Kingville Hunt Club in 1962, expects his generation will be the last to hold deer drives — social events that start at daylight and usually include a dinner of game, like venison or catfish stew.
Oftentimes, the men stay overnight, sleeping in campers.
“You may call it a Southern thing, but it’s been going on hundreds of years,” said Goodwin, 59.
“I’ll probably see it go away in my lifetime. ... There’s a big move in South Carolina from a lot of people to do away with dog driving totally.”
But Boysia said he doesn’t want to see an end to the tradition of dog drives.
“I don’t think we’re like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I really do not,” he said. “Ultimately, we’re all hunters.
“We don’t want to drive people out of the sport.”
Reach Hinshaw at (803) 771-8641.
Prized hound dies in shelter dispute
Decision to euthanize Big Hitter could be symbol of troubles that imperil the sport
By DAWN HINSHAW - dhinshaw@thestate.com
On a clear and frosty morning in late December, Big Hitter, a 5-year-old foxhound who hadn’t been in the woods for weeks, caught a scent and took off running.
He was fast.
His owner, Arnold Jones of St. George, had arrived for a dog drive at the Kingville Hunt Club in Lower Richland near 6 a.m. that Saturday, meeting up with about 35 guys and 50 hunting dogs.
When Hitter hadn’t returned by 10 a.m., it was clear he had gotten into the Congaree Swamp.
The 6,000-acre hunt club is adjacent to the expansive national park, so it’s not unusual for dogs to chase deer into the swamp and keep on going.
What Jones couldn’t know then was that Hitter — who he’d bought for $750 and expected to produce a line of valuable offspring — would walk for four days and 20 miles, looking for his master, before ending up at the Columbia Animal Shelter.
There, he would die in a dispute over a city law requiring that dogs be neutered before being returned to their owners.
The death of this tricolor foxhound — something that probably would have been unheard of not long ago — has created a stir among hunters.
“There’s rules, surely,” said Trevor Bedell of West Columbia, who helped Jones try to retrieve Hitter, since his hunting buddy lives out of town. “But the animal shelter’s mission should be to protect the dog, when we were making efforts to get the dog.”
Interim city manager Steve Gantt said Hitter’s owners didn’t get to the shelter within the timeline spelled out to them.
“It’s a bad situation all the way around,” said Gantt, who hunted with hounds as a kid in Chester.
CHANGING CULTURE
Hitter could be a symbol for a Southern tradition that’s fading — hunters using dogs to flush deer from the woods, starting a fast and furious chase into the sights of waiting hunters.
It’s a way of hunting passed down in South Carolina families for generations.
But in recent years, the tradition has created bad blood among dog hunters, the more common “still” hunters and landowners.
Large tracts of property required for dog drives are being cut up and developed. The number of hunt clubs is dwindling, too, creating more situations where hunters clash.
Sometimes, dogs tracking a deer will run beyond the boundaries of a hunt club and onto private property, passing a hunter silently waiting in a deer stand.
Jones, who owns 35 to 40 dogs that he uses to hunt big bucks as trophies, can’t imagine hunting any other way.
“There is nothing more exciting than 25 hounds running the deer right at you,” said Jones, 46. “Your heart goes pounding in your chest. It’s an adrenaline rush, to have game coming at you that fast, and you have a matter of seconds to even try to shoot.”
Frank A. Boysia hunts on 3,000 acres he and his father own in Lee and Sumter counties. They farm and participate in wildlife programs that provide habitat for deer and quail.
But Boysia said trespassing dogs disrupt the “good and natural experience” he pursues outdoors.
“I’m sitting there in a peaceful situation with my son on a deer stand, in a food plot that I’ve planted — with my money, with my labor and my love,” said Boysia, 40. “It ruins your whole reason for even having property like that.
“So for me, it’s a property rights issue.”
HUNTING FOR HITTER
Hunters usually look for lost dogs along roads.
That’s because foxhounds know to wait there, said Charles Ruth, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources.
“They’re going to be out standing by the road, looking for their owner. A lot of time, they’ll start walking the road because they can relate the road to the truck to the man.”
That’s how Hitter would have ended up in Columbia.
The Saturday of the hunt, Jones went home to Dorchester County. Bedell, 31, said he drove down Bluff Road and through Lower Richland on each of the next three days, looking for Hitter.
The next day, Christmas Eve, Hitter wandered into Columbia’s Granby Park, his tracking collar and I.D. tag still fastened around his neck.
A city park ranger called the phone number on the tag and left a message for Jones, then called the Columbia Animal Shelter.
RURAL CULTURE, URBAN LAWS
Animal control laws in Columbia don’t acknowledge the tradition of hunting with dogs.
In Columbia, lost pets must be neutered before they can be returned to the owners with three exceptions — if they are sick dogs, show dogs, or guide dogs for the blind.
The spay-neuter program is the foundation of the shelter’s efforts to reduce the number of unwanted animals.
If a hunting dog steps outside the city limits into unincorporated Richland County, the law is different.
In more rural Richland County, owners of hunting dogs can take their dogs home without sterilization if they have a valid hunting license.
Richland County administrator Milton Pope said the dual policies make sense. People are allowed to hunt in the county, not in the city.
Years ago, a debate over whether to require hunting dogs to be spayed or neutered was among the sticking points in efforts to merge city and county animal control operations.
It was no longer an issue when the two jurisdictions decided last year to join programs under one roof — at the Columbia shelter.
The merger will occur in coming weeks. Gantt, the assistant city manager, said this might be a good time to compare policies and see whether they should fall more closely in line.
Still, Marli Drum, the shelter director, doesn’t anticipate problems keeping track of which animals are picked up in the city and which are picked up in the county.
Addresses are logged and city limits lines checked with care, she said, in part to ensure the city doesn’t foot the bill for any animal not in its jurisdiction.
‘A WELL-KNOWN HOUND’
The city’s neutering requirement was a big bone of contention once Jones and Bedell discovered the dog had been taken to the city shelter.
They did not want the dog neutered.
While Bedell had sold the dog to Jones, he said he retained breeding rights.
Jones said Drum first told him the dog had to be neutered, then agreed to accept proof that he had placed in four national trials — documentation that was hard to find during the holidays surrounding Christmas and New Year’s.
“A lot of people knew the dog,” Jones said. “He was a well-known hound. He came from champions.”
Jones collected what proof he could and faxed it to Bedell. Bedell acknowledged he never turned the paperwork over to Drum, saying the documents weren’t what she wanted.
In an interview, Drum said she didn’t have permission to discuss the case but would talk generally about procedures. The city also provided a Jan. 6 memo outlining her recollection of events, under the subject line, “EUTHANIZED DOG.”
Under city policy, lost or stray dogs are held for five days, Drum said. If they have tags, they are kept for two weeks. Once the owner is reached, however, the five-day hold begins.
Bedell said he went by the shelter once and called twice, trying to bring Hitter home.
The last time he called Drum was on Friday, Jan. 2, nine days after Hitter was picked up.
Bedell said he told Drum he planned to adopt the dog once Hitter became available to the public for adoption.
Drum’s memo said she explained he couldn’t adopt the dog just to get around paying the redemption fees, and that she reiterated the dog would have to be neutered.
The following Monday, Bedell went to the shelter only to find that Hitter had been put down, one of 43 dogs to be euthanized Jan. 5.
Drum’s memo said Hitter had developed kennel cough, a contagious infection. “Because of this, the dog could not be held any longer,” she wrote. “To do so would have put many other dogs at risk.”
Just last week, Bedell showed up at the shelter looking to help a friend, Lee Gross, retrieve his lost hunting dog.
The dog had been picked up in Richland County, around Hopkins, and was released to his owner after he produced a hunting license.
“There’s got to be some consistency,” Bedell complained.
“I don’t see how they can be executioner on one and let the other go with a ... hunting license.”
END OF THE HUNT?
Hunting with dogs is part of the culture of the Southeast, from Virginia to Arkansas, said the DNR’s Ruth.
In South Carolina, dog drives are allowed only in the 28 counties where it has the foothold of history, from Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties south and east toward the coast.
But deer hunting with dogs has declined over the past 20 to 30 years, part of an overall change in the number of people who hunt, according to DNR figures.
After peaking in 1980 at 203,170, the number of South Carolinians who took out hunting licenses bottomed out in 2006 at 154,078.
With tensions rising among hunters, legislators, led by Sen. Yancey McGill, D-Williamsburg, are trying to mediate.
Calhoun County Sheriff Thomas Summers said two or three hunting dogs were shot to death in the woods a couple of years ago in a sign of the growing rift among hunters.
And a couple of “nuisance” lawsuits have been filed against dog owners in the absence of laws to regulate dog drives.
The Legislature stepped in last year, asking DNR to arrange a series of meetings in hopes of reaching agreement among hunters. “We did not come to a consensus,” Ruth said.
Hal Goodwin, whose family started the Kingville Hunt Club in 1962, expects his generation will be the last to hold deer drives — social events that start at daylight and usually include a dinner of game, like venison or catfish stew.
Oftentimes, the men stay overnight, sleeping in campers.
“You may call it a Southern thing, but it’s been going on hundreds of years,” said Goodwin, 59.
“I’ll probably see it go away in my lifetime. ... There’s a big move in South Carolina from a lot of people to do away with dog driving totally.”
But Boysia said he doesn’t want to see an end to the tradition of dog drives.
“I don’t think we’re like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I really do not,” he said. “Ultimately, we’re all hunters.
“We don’t want to drive people out of the sport.”
Reach Hinshaw at (803) 771-8641.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Bad laws break up families- force owners to give up dogs they otherwise would be keeping
Today I got an email from a friend that had been forwarded from someone she knew. The email was a plea for help. It was asking for help finding a home for a 5 year old "pit bull". The owner was in the military and was moving to on-base housing and there is a ban on "pit bulls" on base. The email went on to say what a great dog this is, how much the owner loved the dog, and that he really wanted to find a good home for this dog.
Imagine- this guy has had this dog for 5 years and now, because of some PERCEIVED problem, he is forced to give the dog up.
It reminded me of another situation where one of my former neighbors gave up her adult Rottweiler because (a different neighbor) kept calling the police on her every time the dog was barking. This dog was a family pet, but would bark a lot while he was outside playing with the kids. The town we lived in (I have since moved) had a "noise ordinance" and one man in the neighborhood was a real jerk. The police only knew two options, 1st- we fine you for a violation of the noise ordinance, and 2nd- the dog must go.
There was another option to the "Dog must go"- the dog could have been "bark softened" "debarked"- what ever term you call it. This very, very simple procedure could have kept an adult dog with his family.
If you have not gotten the Animal Rights message Loud and Clear- eliminate animal ownership- then you are not listening.
Right now many states, (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania to name two) are reviewing laws that would make procedures such as "debarking" illegal. Many states (Hawaii and Montana to name two) are reviewing breed specific legislation. These laws only cause families to give up dogs that were otherwise beloved pets. THEN the Animal Rights groups have the nerve to cry, "our shelters are over-flowing and we are forced to kill thousands of dogs a year"- Yeah- well it is YOUR PROPOSED LAWS that are the REASONS for many, many, many of these dogs in shelters to begin with.
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PeTA), and some of the very liberal "local" shelters have a great circle going- fund and propose laws that cause dogs to go to shelters, raise money from people while you claim there are too many dogs, get money by adopting those dogs out-use volunteer labor, reduced or donated Veterinary care to reduce the expense of housing shelter dogs, lobby for more legislation.
Lets keep family dogs in their families. Put a stop to ill-conceived dog laws. Contact your ELECTED representive now.
Imagine- this guy has had this dog for 5 years and now, because of some PERCEIVED problem, he is forced to give the dog up.
It reminded me of another situation where one of my former neighbors gave up her adult Rottweiler because (a different neighbor) kept calling the police on her every time the dog was barking. This dog was a family pet, but would bark a lot while he was outside playing with the kids. The town we lived in (I have since moved) had a "noise ordinance" and one man in the neighborhood was a real jerk. The police only knew two options, 1st- we fine you for a violation of the noise ordinance, and 2nd- the dog must go.
There was another option to the "Dog must go"- the dog could have been "bark softened" "debarked"- what ever term you call it. This very, very simple procedure could have kept an adult dog with his family.
If you have not gotten the Animal Rights message Loud and Clear- eliminate animal ownership- then you are not listening.
Right now many states, (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania to name two) are reviewing laws that would make procedures such as "debarking" illegal. Many states (Hawaii and Montana to name two) are reviewing breed specific legislation. These laws only cause families to give up dogs that were otherwise beloved pets. THEN the Animal Rights groups have the nerve to cry, "our shelters are over-flowing and we are forced to kill thousands of dogs a year"- Yeah- well it is YOUR PROPOSED LAWS that are the REASONS for many, many, many of these dogs in shelters to begin with.
The Human Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PeTA), and some of the very liberal "local" shelters have a great circle going- fund and propose laws that cause dogs to go to shelters, raise money from people while you claim there are too many dogs, get money by adopting those dogs out-use volunteer labor, reduced or donated Veterinary care to reduce the expense of housing shelter dogs, lobby for more legislation.
Lets keep family dogs in their families. Put a stop to ill-conceived dog laws. Contact your ELECTED representive now.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
TN- Agency trying to be "pro-active" raids a Dog Breeders Home
According to the Chattanoogan A dog breeders home was "raided" in a "pro-active" search for cruelty cases. The McKamey employees admit that this breeder turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." Additional fees still imposed.
The full story:
Dog Breeder Says Home "Raided," Must Pay Almost $900 In Fees
posted January 28, 2009
An East Brainerd chihuahua breeder said her home was "raided" by officers
from the McKamey Animal Trust and she was required to pay almost $900 infees. Terry Boydston appeared before members of the City Council along with McKamey official Steve Mayo on Tuesday. Ms. Boydston she keeps 13 chihuahuas inside her home on Skyline Drive,including eight that are "breeders." She said on a Sunday morning "three trucks pulled up with six men. I was scared to death. The neighbors were all looking. They thought I was beingraided."
Ms. Boydston said she treats her dogs well and keeps meticulous records. She said she grooms the dogs for show appearances.She said she only sold one puppy last year, but will have to pay extra fees because that put her in the category of a dog dealer. She said she was also classified as a dog breeder and as a multiple pet owner. She said she had to pay the almost $900 and that will be an annual expense. She said she may have to sell more puppies in order to be able to pay the fee.
Ms. Boydston said she maintains a website that is mainly devoted to telling others how to properly care for their pets. Mr. Mayo said McKamey officials are concerned about "puppy mills," though he said Ms. Boydston turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." He said there were 78 ads in that day's newspaper by dog dealers. Mr. Mayo said some dog dealers are cruel to their animals and his agency is trying to be "pro-active" to find such cases. Council members asked McKamey officials to consider whether there may be some duplication in fees and whether they should be so high on Ms. Boydston.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said, "There is a difference between a puppy mill and a dog breeder, and I think that our law does not differentiate enough."
RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-DSan Antonio, TX 78209
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)To subscribe or unsubscribe,e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
The full story:
Dog Breeder Says Home "Raided," Must Pay Almost $900 In Fees
posted January 28, 2009
An East Brainerd chihuahua breeder said her home was "raided" by officers
from the McKamey Animal Trust and she was required to pay almost $900 infees. Terry Boydston appeared before members of the City Council along with McKamey official Steve Mayo on Tuesday. Ms. Boydston she keeps 13 chihuahuas inside her home on Skyline Drive,including eight that are "breeders." She said on a Sunday morning "three trucks pulled up with six men. I was scared to death. The neighbors were all looking. They thought I was beingraided."
Ms. Boydston said she treats her dogs well and keeps meticulous records. She said she grooms the dogs for show appearances.She said she only sold one puppy last year, but will have to pay extra fees because that put her in the category of a dog dealer. She said she was also classified as a dog breeder and as a multiple pet owner. She said she had to pay the almost $900 and that will be an annual expense. She said she may have to sell more puppies in order to be able to pay the fee.
Ms. Boydston said she maintains a website that is mainly devoted to telling others how to properly care for their pets. Mr. Mayo said McKamey officials are concerned about "puppy mills," though he said Ms. Boydston turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." He said there were 78 ads in that day's newspaper by dog dealers. Mr. Mayo said some dog dealers are cruel to their animals and his agency is trying to be "pro-active" to find such cases. Council members asked McKamey officials to consider whether there may be some duplication in fees and whether they should be so high on Ms. Boydston.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said, "There is a difference between a puppy mill and a dog breeder, and I think that our law does not differentiate enough."
RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-DSan Antonio, TX 78209
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)To subscribe or unsubscribe,e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Man found guilty of cruelty dispite permission from PA Department of Agriculture Dog Warden
Notice that the SPCA cited him- not a PA Department of Agriculture Dog Law Warden
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)