Basset Hound pack seized in police raid [Archive]

JSwan

Aug. 7, 2009, 07:53 AM

I don't think there's any suggestion that the dogs were surrendered *willingly by choice* in what Ms. Wicklund wrote, merely that it is *unfortunate* that it happened. So no facts need be corrected, unless you were referring to something else entirely, Jswan?

The point is that the raid and seizure should never have happened in the first place.

The AR groups are getting scarier by the day. :eek::mad:

That basset group is implying that the Master had a choice. She did not. She was raided at night, there was a stream of vehicles and officers, and she was forced to choose between giving up all her hounds or just a few.

She's a victim of an overzealous SPCA that can't even keep its own kennels clean - they recently had dogs die because of a deadly pathogen in their "shelter". They recently sent out a request for fosters because there is no room. They fired their director and then had to rehire him. Pretty ironic they'd accuse this club of having dirty kennels (at night when the kennels are cleaned in the am) when their shelter dogs are dying from poor animal husbandry.

That kennel has been there for decades and she is one of only 13 recognized packs in the US. She's a victim of animal rights politics in that state - that SPCA has a "thing" about kennels.

The SPCA is now spinning this story to make it seem the woman is guilty because she demanded a warrant. I don't know about you but I would too. She was given a few days to comply with the zoning regulation but if any of you have had to deal with a zoning office - even a tiny minor matter can take weeks or months to be reviewed. It takes time and often a meeting or hearing. It never happens in a few days, nothing does.

I'm not excusing any failure on her part, but a full scale raid at night? For a zoning violation? How much money did that cost the jurisdiction???? And for what? Because the owner had not gotten her letter from the health department yet?

That doesn't pass the smell test.

We all have funny stories about animal control being called about the "blindfolds" on our horses. The ACO comes out and has a good laugh with us, because it's obvious it's just an error.

But what will we do when it's the ACO that is accusing us and has the authority to seize our animals?

I agree with you - this is just crazy.

For folks who don't know what this club does:

This pack is a recognized private pack and has been profiled in COTH (look for any hunt roster issue for specifics)

The governing body is the National Beagle Club, and Murder Hollow Bassets is well known at field trials and hound shows. Award winning.

Basseting is organized similar to foxhunting - you have a Master(s), whippers-in, and the field. However, the quarry is the cottontail or hare and everyone follows the hounds on foot.

Here are some photos of the recent pack trials at the National Beagle Club.

http://www.klmimages.com/packtrials

Here is a lovely photo of Murder Hollow Bassets:

http://www.klmimages.com/packtrials_02_3/h21333776#h21333776

This is not a puppy mill and this woman has been targeted by an SPCA with a political ax to grind against sporting dog owners in that state.

LookinForSpace

Aug. 7, 2009, 10:13 AM

That basset group is implying that the Master had a choice.

I simply disagree with you there, I don't see that implication at all. The Basset Hound Club of America is ON MS. WILLARD'S SIDE AGAINST THE SPCA. The whole point of Ms. Wicklund's email is to gather support in the form of letters to the SPCA demanding the release of the dogs. Saying that it's unfortunate that it happened is not the same as saying she had a choice in the matter.

Kdow wrote: I mean, I fully believe in animal rights in that I think they have the 'right' to good treatment and to not be abused and so on, and I think we could do a LOT to improve the enforcement of those things - including better regulation of the people enforcing the laws so that you don't get this kind of politically motivated ridiculousness - but of course none of the groups that tout themselves as 'for animals' have any interest in that sort of thing, and it seems like it's really very difficult for groups to keep separate from that 'animal rights crazy people' paintbrush.

Kdow, what you describe is Animal WELFARE, *not* Animal "RIGHTS." That's where the AR groups try to blur the distinction successfully. Animal welfare can be typically be addressed through existing laws and regulations on animal cruelty and welfare, withOUT the need for draconian tactics such as the seizure of the hounds described in the article above (even the SPCA is not claiming any violation of animal cruelty or welfare laws in that case). The agenda for AR groups is really quite different from supporting Animal Welfare and often is direct opposition -- as demonstrated by this case. Many people who donate to AR groups believe that they are supporting animal Welfare issues when their money is really going to animal "Rights" legislation and goals.

lcw579

Aug. 7, 2009, 10:29 AM

Sent an email. I'm from the area so I'll see what happens.

halla

Aug. 7, 2009, 11:20 AM

The PSPCA scares me.

I have to run out, but found some related articles:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090807_PSPCA_seizes_beloved_basset_hounds_in_Rox borough.html
Coverage in the Daily News

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Can-Sue-Cosby-Turn-PSPCA-Around-48564487.html
Free weekly paper's ongoing coverage of the PSPCA takeover of the animal control contract in Philly, including an interview with the new head.

JanM

Aug. 7, 2009, 03:21 PM

I find it interesting that a group (PSPCA) that is on tv (Animal Planet's Animal Cops Philadelphia) and repeatedly do virtually nothing to dog fighters and about extreme cases of cruelty go after a dog kennel that is a recognized hunting group, and the neighbors all say they didn't complain. It really reeks of the local politics-bet it's on Animal Planet next season too. They showed the stable seizure and destruction-only a couple of animals looked uncared for to me, and the stable 'owner' might have been a squatter who was renting stalls to people illegally without their knowledge. Anyone who emails the local officials about this should also protest the televising of this group on Animal Cops also.

vacation1

Aug. 7, 2009, 06:00 PM

I am always reluctant to jump in with both feet screaming "PETA monsters!" because, well, I think people overreact a lot. But this is a weirdy. Animal control typically has to be forced at gunpoint to seize so much as a single slavering dog after it's ripped off three faces and killed a busload of nuns. The idea of them willingly seizing a large numbers of animals without a shitload of proof that there's something highly illegal going on? The only thing I'm seeing in those articles is that the dogs tested positive for lyme and had some skin issues? My dog tests positive for lyme sometimes and has skin issues a lot - it's not exactly proof of abuse or neglect. And the whole 'raid' aspect strikes me as insane. Then again, Philly city gov't and the PSPCA have been insane for a while, so maybe not a big surprise. Though the city has a big enough problem with dog and cock fighting, not to mention a total nightmare of cat overpopulation, that you'd think busting short hounds in the wilds of Roxborough would be way down on their list of stuff to do. Just crazy.

Passiton

Aug. 9, 2009, 07:36 PM

Update below.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here is another side of the story from Wendy herself: Please cross post.......

First a huge thank you for all your words of support and everything that you have done! I had my third visit today from the PSPCA and again threats of multiple citations if I didn't cooperate with these lovely folks. I can fill you in the details, but more important fish to fry (sorry, Jeep).

I have been deluged by phone calls and e-mails from all over the country, from a lawyer in GA (" forget the SPCA, go directly to the State Attorney General") to the manager of a shelter in IL ("can't believe.. and horrified"). The blogs seem to have been in over drive.

Good news is we got a very sympathetic article in one of the two major papers today. A reporter has also called from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as the AKC and the Chronicle of the Horse (Molly Sorgi? 804-994-2349). My problem is that if I respond personally, the SPCA has made it clear that I must "cooperate or multiple citations will be issued and there would be no PA Kennel License".

So here is my response to the PSPCA website (www.pspca.org/news), first article about the Murder Hollow Bassets. I cannot respond to anyone in the media or even the PSPCA, but I can let you know. Whatever you chose to do with my information, oh well.

1. Only one dog barking complaint from unknown neighbor, no other complaints. That neighbor has yet to come forth, although all, I mean all have expressed dismay in writing. Never in the 22 years of having a kennel here has anyone come to me to complain in person, writing, or e-mail.

2. The websites indicated that the SPCA left requests to be contacted. The 'Humane Law Officer' (her term, not mine) left a card in my door with no information, no requests for a call, no warnings or no citations a few days before the raid. Absolutely none. She could have left a note to call, because I get lots of cards from grass cutters to painters. No mention of any 12 dog limit in the city.

3. Yes, I initially refused entry with a long explanation about abuses due to the new Dog Law. Two Dog Law Officers (from Harrisburg in two trucks), three PSPCA officers (in three trucks, not including the small truck with those tiny multiple pens on the side), and two Police Officers (two police cars) quickly returned with a search warrant.

4. The PSPCA did NOT work with the owner to reduce the number of dogs. Officer Tara Loller repeatedly, repeatedly threatened to take all the dogs if I did not give her 10. Under extreme duress and far outnumbered, I handed over 10 hounds. Talk about Sophie's Choice in the dark. Then they found Hansel and demanded one more. I gave them my other house hound, taking off her collar and Invisible Fence collar. All the time crying hysterically and protesting loudly.

5. When forced to sign release papers for the now 11 hounds, I explained that Betsy Park was the technical owner of three and wrote her name at the bottom of the forms. (Betsy, sending you copies.) Officer Loller assured me that Betsy Park would get first consideration for adoption.

6. A 'Warning' for re-inspection was issued, but no other warning or citation. A copy of the Philadelphia Animals laws (17 pages) included 3 lines which stated "No residential dwelling unit shall keep a total of more than twelve (12) adult dogs or cats combined of which no more than four (4) may be unneutered", was left in my kennels. These laws were never handed to me before or after the raid, and I was never informed of these laws by my Philadelphia Vet or the Philadelphia Dog Licensing Agency that took my money year after year.

7. At the first re-inspection, the 'Humane Law Officer' was accompanied by an Assistant District Attorney, Barbara Paul. They found the conditions of the hounds (one bitch needed nail trimming, all done by my Vet) and kennels to be satisfactory (some ceiling insulation tiles were more securely fastened). The indentations in the limestone screenings outside the kennel made by random scratching will be filled with more screenings. That should have been accomplished, but the black cloud over the kennel dropped 6+" of rain on Sunday. Tons of stone are being dumped on the lane first.

8. The DA left her card and asked to be phoned with questions. I e-mailed her a question about the definition of "residential dwelling unit". Is the barn a separate unit? As it was constructed and only used by hounds, does that make the barn a residential unit? She replied that she could not give me that information because we may be in "adversarial positions" and directed me to the Philadelphia Bar Lawyer Referrals.

9. To date, no one has been told of the location of the seized hounds and no calls have been returned from Officer Ray Little, the PSPCA Adoption Agent. A neighboring Vet who has offered free health care for the life of the adoptees and wants Khaki has not heard from them. David Gottier who wants the two litter mates of his hounds and Sandy McKenna who wants the one year old fuzzy bitch have been stone walled. Dr. Roy Feldman and Pat Renner from my Hunt have not heard back. But there is an urgent message on the PSPCA website asking for foster homes and adoptions, because they have no room in the shelter.

Again, I am asking you to be in the position of the messenger, but feel free to ask me any questions. Thank you SO much.

Wendy

***************************

Equibrit

Aug. 9, 2009, 07:59 PM

We could adopt the hounds and send them home !

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:01 PM

They won't tell anyone who has them. They've vanished.

LexInVA

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:02 PM

We could adopt the hounds and send them home !

Not possible. They will thoroughly vet any adoption applicants not to mention go after you in court if you were to ever do such a thing.

Equibrit

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:05 PM

Where was this lady's lawyer ?

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:07 PM

Not possible. They will thoroughly vet any adoption applicants not to mention go after you in court if you were to ever do such a thing.

True. Y'all need to understand that those hounds may not even be in Pennsylvania anymore.

Animals are transported all over the country - and the owner has no way of locating them no matter how innocent they are. There may be a paper trail, there may not. There may be a photo of individual hounds - there may not. There will be no way for anyone, lawful owner or not - to ever find them unless the SPCA chooses to tell anyone, or is forced to by court order. And even then - they may just not know.

Anyone who works in dog rescue will tell you that. Vans meet at rest stops on the interstate and switch loads, animals are transported without vaccination records - they're just shipped everywhere.

Equibrit - she'd need tens of thousands for this type of case. My guess is she can't afford to hire someone to represent her - because if she did he/she would not have permitted her to make that statement.

LexInVA

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:29 PM

I hope these events don't set a bad precedent. I have been around many animal rescue folks who wholeheartedly believe with every fiber of their mentally unbalanced being that they should be given the legal authority and have the moral right to do what seems to have been done here. I honestly believe that some of the exceptionally less than normal ones drive around in vans on the rural roads stealing dogs from people and hoard them under the guise of rescue but nobody seems to care so long as the money comes in. Anyway, a few months ago at an adoption event I was attending, I encountered one such lady who advocated killing or severely harming any dog owner who did not fall in line with her beliefs which were a bit on the self-righteous side. The old coot just started ranting about how little she thought of many dog owners and it was scary. I haven't been to an adoption event since. :eek:

Bluey

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:33 PM

It is but going to get worse yet.

This fellow was appointed to suprevise and make animal related rules and regulations:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=104820

Very worrysome for all of us that want to keep caring for our animals.:eek:

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:38 PM

That man is a lunatic. You should have read his editorial in the NY Times recently. (P. Singer)

It's hard for me to write that because I have tremendous respect for people with religious or ethical objections to the use of animals - any use. And I think we've made great strides in animal welfare in the past 50 years.

But the nominee is an absolute lunatic and it's an extraordinarily poor decision on the part of that President.

No wait- since Mr. Singer advocates euthanizing the elderly perhaps it complements health care reform.

You don't need to worry about caring for your animals, Bluey. You won't have any to worry about.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:41 PM

Well, I for one have been thoroughly radicalized by the seizure of the Murder Hollow Bassets.:no:

I used to believe folks when they said "oh, don't worry - we'd never try and enforce limits on the number of dogs/mandatory speuter/etc against y'all - we're just after the puppy mills."

No more. I will fight every inch of the way legislation that carries so much as a whiff of similar regulation in my area.

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 08:58 PM

Paint - I used to believe it too. I thought folks were more than a little paranoid.

The outsourcing of animal control work to nonprofits is the issue. Animal control is part of law enforcement and should remain so - it's the only way a citizen can be assured of due process.

Local government finds it an attractive option because they can just palm it off and be done with it.

If the nonprofit is run well and has no political leanings - it may do a good job. Or it could be a little fiefdom.

The ACO's often have a badge and even arrest powers - but NO training or education. Maybe a little internet course or something.

Another problem (and you may appreciate this since you're practicing) is the cost of mounting a defense - PLUS paying the bill the nonprofits accrues - which you are not permitted to object to.

Like in this case - ALL the hounds tested positive for Lyme? Was it REALLY necessary to perform that test on all those hounds? Pretty much all hounds or dogs in that area test "positive" for Lyme. But it wasn't an emergency - the hounds were not going to die.

Tests like that, and non necessary treatment is administered to bolster their claim that the animals were neglected. See - EVERY hound has Lyme disease!

Raiding the kennel at night? Why? Kennels are cleaned in the am. A night raid is certainly dramatic (all those flashing lights), but "evidence" would show feces in the kennel.

Which is normal at the end of the day - not evidence of neglect. Like in the winter when I turn out in the morning - the stalls are a mess. It could be made to look like neglect by someone so inclined - and I'd have a helluva time convincing a nonhorseperson that my animals did not sleep in their own feces.

There is.. literally.. no defense an owner can make. Your animal is gone and they won't tell you were it is and you'll never get it back without spending tens of thousands.

This case is typical. They make it seem the owner voluntarily surrendered the animals - but that isn't true. They literally backed her into a corner and said - give up a few - or give up all of them.

These people have such extensive powers that they could literally seize your horse because you blindfolded it. Then they could ship that horse off God knows where, give it all sorts of test and treatment you'd be responsible for - and there is NOTHING you can do.

More and more governments are adopting this model as they believe it is cost effective.

From the citizens perspective - there is no due process.

My state defeated a similar proposal - one that would have allowed every PETA employee to become an investigator. There was no limit to appointments and no requirements for training, and they had law enforcement powers - and they could have interfered with lawful hunting under the Open Fields Doctrine.

Call me a paranoid lunatic if you want -I know it sounds crazy. It is surreal - and it is true.

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:06 PM

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:13 PM

As long as there is any State action, and in these cases there is, they still need to use DP. Even if they are privatized, they are backed by the state and operating under the color of law.

I got the pigs back and it cost $0. Just some e-mails and phone calls and a few lessons in DP. Someone should be able to help this woman get her hounds back.

I'm so glad you were able to help that woman. I remember your blog posts about her and that was just awful. She was really persecuted.

It's funny you mention due process. You'd be amazed how many shelters believe they don't need to bother with such things. A friend of mine was successful in her suit against a shelter here that refused to answer her FOIA requests. They said as a nonprofit - they were not required to obey such laws. (even though they were contracted to run shelter operations)

Luckily for my friend she was able to obtain representation pro bono and she filed suit and won.

But you have to understand - people had been trying for YEARS to find out what that shelter was doing with the millions in their budget.

We shouldn't have to file lawsuits - and lawyers should not have to work for free.

This particular SPCA is an extremely aggressive and powerful one. It's the shelter that seized all those horses so their barn could be razed by the city - not all the owners could find another barn and I think some of them ended up surrendering their horses - NONE of whom were neglected.

The puppy politics of PA resulted in a tremendous amount of animosity - and a desire for vendetta. The SPCA is extremely animal rights oriented - very political.

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:19 PM

I wish I knew a PA lawyer that hunted with hounds. I can not say one way or another whether her rights were violated, but she has no opportunity to defend herself at all. I do not care how the law is drafted, Due Process trumps bad laws. She should have some sort of process. Even Texas has SOMETHING!:no:

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:27 PM

JSwan - I know.:no: I once had to represent a God-blessed scum-sucking bottom feeder of a dog fighter on account of just such lunacy.

The town in question farmed their AC enforcement duties out to the local Animal Shelter. Which wasn't a government entity and what lawyer wants to sue the Animal Shelter? Can you imagine? Heartless shark of an attorney sues the people who take in ickle puppies and kittehs.

They raided the guy at dawn so his kennels would be full of night soil. Carted him off in his jammies and put down about fifty pibbles before he even got out of jail. Due process clause? Nope. As soon as those pit bulls started fence-fighting and acting like do-gooder might taste fine for breakfast, nobody had ever heard of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment.

So I sued the municipality (who were all like, what? us? We didn't seize any pit bulls) anyway, on an apparent authority theory of agency. They settled. The firm I worked for took a percentage so it didn't cost the God-blessed scum-sucking dog fighter a dime.

I can't tell you how badly I hated having to sit in the same room with that damned dog-fighter. But y'know, if they can come for pibbles at dawn, they might be back for border collies by dark.

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:36 PM

I agree - and I think sometimes these incidents are awfully weird.

I bet most of us could point out a house or farm in our area that needs a visit from the ACO. And it's like pulling teeth to get the ACO to do anything. (we're lucky here but I'm just making a general comment)

Then you hear stories like this SPCA which from all accounts is like a little army of brown shirts. (not just because of this incident but this SPCA has been controversial for a long time)

I'm like - WTF? There aren't enough pit bull rings or cockfights around - you gotta destroy an old woman and steal her dogs? Flashing lights? Night Raids? The lawful owner of 3 of the hounds isn't permitted to claim them?

The fight over the dog laws in that state was like WWIII. Evidently it's ongoing.

I know Jenn has got a lot going on but I miss her input -what her group does is really a model for how this type of thing can work well - for owners AND animals.

ETA - ewwwww, Paint. You must have wanted to go home and shower for about 3 hours. But you're right - absolutely right. And you're also right about lawyers not wanting to sue the shelter. Gawd - they'd probably get death threats.

I wish I knew a PA lawyer that hunted with hounds. I can not say one way or another whether her rights were violated, but she has no opportunity to defend herself at all. I do not care how the law is drafted, Due Process trumps bad laws. She should have some sort of process. Even Texas has SOMETHING!:no:

tkhawk

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:37 PM

Strange law. So someone can come in bursting through your door at night with police sirens blaring and seize your dogs with no prior warning? No previous visits, no oppurtunity to correct? This is just dumb and actually scary.

They are not even saying it was an abuse case-just a violation of a city ordinance-of which the owner was not even given an opportunity to correct.

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:44 PM

No - these people did have a warrant.

She refused them entry - which is her right. They came back with a warrant. Night raids are so much more dramatic, don't you think?

No - no abuse or neglect. Just a minor zoning violation easily remedied given enough time - it takes time to get paperwork through zoning administration.

Which is why I'm like - wow - wonder what they do if your fence is too high? Firing squad at dawn?

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 09:55 PM

Same thing in my pig case. The County denied any relationship at all in writing. Too bad they had posted bragging rights about the incident on You-tube. I felt bad about having to sue the shelter, but I would have done it anyway.

I did have the opposite problem in the past--having to threaten a writ of mandamus to get someone to seize abused and neglected animals, but is a happy medium too freakn' hard to do?

This case is pretty much exactly like the Chicago carriage horse case.

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:08 PM

I know Jenn has got a lot going on but I miss her input -what her group does is really a model for how this type of thing can work well - for owners AND animals.

She will be back soon. We are over on facebook planning a surf camp vacation. You really need to join facebook. The party is moving over there:winkgrin:

tkhawk

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:09 PM

Fairview Horse Center

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:15 PM

This case is pretty much exactly like the Chicago carriage horse case.

What was the result of that case? It was such a farce. :mad:

Who do we need to do 3000 calls to?

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:18 PM

Ya know - YouTube is going to be the downfall of civilization. :lol:

Everyone is on facebook? I'd wondered where folks had gone off to.

Someone on this BB wrote recently that Americans are no longer a reasonable people. I thought it odd at the time but now I think I'm beginning to understand. There is no happy medium anymore. No reasonable man. It's all extremes.

I'd ask for a warrant too. Rules is rules - If I've got to obey them- so can everyone else. Seems..... reasonable.

Same thing in my pig case. The County denied any relationship at all in writing. Too bad they had posted bragging rights about the incident on You-tube. I felt bad about having to sue the shelter, but I would have done it anyway.

I did have the opposite problem in the past--having to threaten a writ of mandamus to get someone to seize abused and neglected animals, but is a happy medium too freakn' hard to do?

This case is pretty much exactly like the Chicago carriage horse case.

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:24 PM

What was the result of that case? It was such a farce. :mad:

Who do we need to do 3000 calls to?

I do not know. The thread on that is on OC and I do not think there have been many updates.

I know when change happens there is a period of adjustment. Things will level out in time, but this is how they get sane. People talk about it and put pressure one way or another on those that are in charge.

I have never met "The reasonable man" but I have heard he is most likely a tool that lives with his mother:cool:

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:27 PM

Nothing wrong in her asking for a warrant.

If she has a good lawyer friend or someone who believes in this cause, she should sue the city-they are the ones who contracted with the SPCA.

This is just scary. What if due to a new zoning law, your house or a structure in your property now does not comply-are they just going to come in with a wrecking ball and demolish? There is a reason for checks and balances. :mad:

Most times things are grandfathered in, but yes, they just come along and wreck it. But they have to give you some due process first even if the outcome is set in stone.

I am now leaning about Home Owners Associations. That is SCARY STUFF! They are NOT in any way related to the State. Law unto themselves.

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:43 PM

I am now leaning about Home Owners Associations. That is SCARY STUFF! They are NOT in any way related to the State. Law unto themselves.

Bwwwwwhahahahha!!!!!!

One of these days I'll buy you a beer and tell you two stories.

One of snoozing on my deck on a hot summer day. I open my eyes to see a hand poking up over my privacy fence. Holding a camera. It wasn't a peeping tom. It looked like Thing from the Addams Family.

The other involved a ten year dispute over numbered parking spaces. One incident involved the police, a tow chain, my truck, and a little car that squealed like a stuck pig when it was forcibly removed from my reserved spot. (I didn't get arrested, by the way - cop was laughing too hard)

I will never live in such a place again, Hear me God.

JSwan

Aug. 9, 2009, 10:46 PM

I have never met "The reasonable man" but I have heard he is most likely a tool that lives with his mother:cool:

David Souter? :lol:

equinelaw

Aug. 9, 2009, 11:03 PM

No comment.:)

Fairview Horse Center

Aug. 9, 2009, 11:10 PM

I will never live in such a place again, Hear me God.

NOW you've done it!!! NEVER say never! Now you're doomed!

Over 30 years ago, I turned in my notice (work) at the farm where I was working off my horse's board. On the last day, I said, "Whew! I will never clean another stall again as long as I live!" :o :lol:

I was working at a bank, and cleaning after work, but I got a raise. About 6 months later, I was full time at the barn, and VERY few days since have I not cleaned MANY stalls. :sleepy: :dead:

JanM

Aug. 10, 2009, 08:25 AM

I think the PSPCA agenda is very obvious. Why should they go after some real live puppy mill or dog fighting ring when they can get a warrant (probably on false evidence) and have a high profile raid that ends up on the evening news and because of their forcing the kennel operator to give the dogs up they avoid having to take time to build a case. I have (not any more) watched this group on Animal Planet Animal Cops--they do nothing about animals that are definitely abused and starved or fought because they are too lazy to do the field work required to prove ownership and responsibility. I think everyone on COTH should email Animal Planet about this group-I'm doing this right now and telling them the truth-supporting this group as animal savers is a damn lie and I have watched my last Animal Cops show ever. And I pointed out to AP that I have contributed large amounts to ASPCA-NY and Houston because of their actions on the show and what I have learned about them, but will never contribute a penny to the PSPCA or watch anything involving them.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:03 AM

I mean, I fully believe in animal rights in that I think they have the 'right' to good treatment and to not be abused and so on, and I think we could do a LOT to improve the enforcement of those things - including better regulation of the people enforcing the laws so that you don't get this kind of politically motivated ridiculousness - but of course none of the groups that tout themselves as 'for animals' have any interest in that sort of thing, and it seems like it's really very difficult for groups to keep separate from that 'animal rights crazy people' paintbrush.

What you believe in is "animal welfare" - and it is a separate movement from "animal rights". Animal rights people believe that all animals have the same inalienable right as humans - and often it appears that they believe the animal's rights supersede the human's rights.

Those who believe in "animal welfare" believe that we have a responsibility to treat all animals humanely: provide for their food, housing, water needs, protect them from abuse, etc. I would say most everyone on this board is for animal welfare, most are strong proponents of animal welfare. However few here believe in animal rights....

The confusion comes because many former animal welfare groups like ASPCA and HSUS have crossed the line into animal welfare. We're all raised believing those groups have the animals' interests at heart, so we often follow and support those groups only to be disillusioned and disappointed when we find out that what they really promote is a radical form of care and treatment called "rights". They way the change happened was gradual and it pulled many people along with it.

Sorry for the mini-lecture, but animal welfare is what I'm trained in and I hate seeing this common misconception.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:24 AM

Wait - I thought the ASPCA were still the good guys. Not so?:(

Bluey

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:35 AM

Wait - I thought the ASPCA were still the good guys. Not so?:(

Well, they are on the fence line lately, since the HSUS has become so extreme animal rights.
All those groups can see how that is playing, as people are getting more and more informed:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136

All those groups are first for themselves, as if they don't, they would not exist, so they are not going to do stuff that loses them support from the public they depend to exist and thrive.

All of them have smart enough people running them to do some good, the bad part is that some of them are, as already mentioned, dominated by extremists.

Each one of us has to just follow the information and then make our own mind where we stand in these, very important discussions.
They are redefining how we do and will in the future relate to all animals and if we even will have a right to own and use animals, especially domestic ones.

hitchinmygetalong

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:43 AM

For the first time since I registered on this board, I have been unable to read a thread completely through. This whole situation has me in tears, and I am not a cryer, not by a long shot.

My heart goes out to all the folks who are working so hard to reunite the pack owner with her beloved hounds.

I think there are those who so zealously and blindingly guard the animals, that they lose touch with their humanity.

So terrible.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:04 AM

You know - I was just thinking.

I've figured how how these people get around due process provisions.

They don't actually charge the owners with a crime.

Paint and equinelaw will know what I'm taking about.

There was something very telling in the PSCPA statement. "In lieu of charges".

That's how they're getting people. They don't charge you - they just threaten to.

Similar to the Sophie's Choice Wendy had to make. Surrender a few - or surrender them all.

If there was true neglect - the officer would have seized all the bassets.

Like in a real criminal case like dog fighting - they don't leave the owner with a few pitbulls - they raid the place and confiscate them all to prevent any more animals from coming to harm.

Not so, here.

A minor zoning ordinance violation that was easily cured given enough time and some paperwork is treated like a criminal offense.

The officer uses her law enforcement powers to seize the hounds and threaten the owner - but only in a way that renders the owner powerless to resist or disagree.

Instead of charging her with a crime - that would guarantee the owner certain constitutional protections - they keep it in this grey area of administration.

So the owner (which could be any one of us) is not afforded any constitutional protections - only harassed indefinitely. Her property is seized but she can do nothing. She is not charged with a crime, so she cannot face her accusers, call witnesses, demand a trial, or exercise any other right.

The bassets could be dead. They could be in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania - they could be anywhere. She'll never get them back - and the rightful owner of three of those bassets will most likely never see her hounds again - and she is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

That is what animal owners face now. Animal rights activists with a badge and an agenda. You event your horse? Foxhunt? Do H/J? Polo? Dressage? Show your dogs, or cats, or fish or chickens? Your keep your horses out in the winter? Hunt with your dog or hound? Have a barn cat?

Watch your back.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:27 AM

cowgirljenn

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:29 AM

I am now leaning about Home Owners Associations. That is SCARY STUFF! They are NOT in any way related to the State. Law unto themselves.

Oh, come with me to MO sometime to visit my dad. And we'll introduce you to their insane home owners association. They have to ask PERMISSION before trimming their trees! And my realtor wondered why Spencer and I were so adamant about buying a place with no restrictions and no HOA.

Now, back to the topic at hand....

I need to learn more about this case and about hound packs in general (something I've wanted to), but what strikes me off the top is a) that there was a raid at night. What the heck? Who wants to do that? Seriously.... I like starting seizures early in the morning so we have light and time... but I guess I'm too reasonable. :)

The second thing that struck me was that they came in with an awful lot of manpower for such a small group of dogs. I understand the police being there if there was a warrant to serve (and they thought there was a real problem). But I don't understand the need for that many SPCA people for a deal that supposedly involved about 15 dogs...

You know I don't want to have my ability to assist law enforcement curtailed. That's because I deal with a lot of law enforcement who has NO horse experience and a lot of counties that WILL NOT get involved if there's not a rescue to take the burden on. However... these types of cases make it clear there have got to be some guidelines as to who can be involved and how. For our group, I NEVER let my volunteers go on private property without law enforcement present (unless we're invited by the owner for some reason). I don't believe in barging in and making demands. And I only send volunteers who I know, trust and have trained along with law enforcement. I want people I know understand that just because a horse is dirty doesn't mean he's neglected. AND I myself have more training in doing this than a lot of ACOs do. And I pass that training on to my volunteers.

It is frightening that people with no training or real qualifications can do this kind of stuff some places. I think we need guidelines for training - not just for the nonprofit personnel but also for the ACOs and law enforcement - and we need a way to enforce it. We need a better definition of how the law enforcement/nonprofit relationship can work, too.

You guys are making me think an awful lot for the morning after a weekend away of boogie boarding. You really should have eased me back into this. :)

libgrrl

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:29 AM

"Paint,"

The ASPCA and the PSPCA are not the same thing. "SPCA" is commonly used for local animal shelters throughout the country -- similar to "Human Societies."

The PSPCA runs five shelters in Pennsylvania -- the main branch in Philly, and four others. The ASPCA is a non-profit that runs some national campaigns focusing on animal welfare.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:45 AM

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:50 AM

I need to learn more about this case and about hound packs in general (something I've wanted to), but what strikes me off the top is a) that there was a raid at night. What the heck? Who wants to do that? Seriously.... I like starting seizures early in the morning so we have light and time... but I guess I'm too reasonable. :)

The second thing that struck me was that they came in with an awful lot of manpower for such a small group of dogs. I understand the police being there if there was a warrant to serve (and they thought there was a real problem). But I don't understand the need for that many SPCA people for a deal that supposedly involved about 15 dogs...

:)

That was intentional.

Kennels are cleaned in the morning. If they'd come in the morning the kennel would have been so clean you could eat off the floor. Bowls would have been filled with food or water - the place would have been sparkling.

This "shelter" is know for being extremely aggressive, very very political, and very much into drama - they're on that show Animal Cops.

Fairview Horse Center

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:28 AM

So who can be called or emailed to object to this garbage?

halla

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:41 AM

I never would have thought there'd be a situation I'd think "I would so rather have Licenses & Inspections on my case" but this does make me think that. And L&I is no fun either, they can be just as much a political tool that harasses you indefinitely.

I'm glad this is getting in the local papers, and it does seem like opinion is turning against the PSPCA in town. I think the super shortened backstory is that the PSPCA ran the shelters here years ago, got a lot of bad press for doing a horrible job of it, and in desperation were replaced by an organization created by the city, PACCA. That was a hot bed of city corruption for a while, then cleaned up. In the last round of contract awarding about a year ago, the PSPCA somehow regained the contract. That hasn't been going so well, and I think some councilperson was holding hearings about it recently. They did, however, get their 6-month contract renewed in July, but I don't know for how long. From what I hear, local rescues are really opposed to the PSPCA, which I think says something.

Is there any group that has been organized to counter these animal rights groups? I know there are plenty of smaller organizations that oppose the AR policies, but is there any group working solely to oppose them? I'm imaging that the hunting groups and the horse groups and the dog agility and so on groups were to collectively fund a defense organization that could provide legal assistance, PR work, and lobbyists. And not just to go against the AR groups, but to show that the animal groups are actively interested in animal welfare.

I think if it just came off as defensive, that would not look good, but if it could present a clear alternative policy of animal welfare that could be quite convincing. So far the counters I often hear to the AR groups are along the lines of "but what WE do is ok!" which isn't all that convincing to someone who knows nothing about the subject. I think uninvolved people would be much more receptive to an argument that more general stated how we believe animals should be involved in people's lives, with positive assertions about what care they should get, and what activities we do condemn (dogfighting, puppy mills, etc). Plus that would also help clarify in the public's mind that the AR groups are against ALL animal use, which I don't think most people would agree with once they hear it.

Just thoughts.

Here's another column on the bassett seizure:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/52626882.html

And this guys seems to be the main reporter who covers PSPCA stuff locally:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/

Tara Murtha has also written a number of articles critical of the PSPCA for the Philadelphia Weekly, but I can't find any contact info for her

halla

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:48 AM

Just had another thought - she should try calling her councilperson. Might not do anything, but they often have unexpected influence.

Equibrit

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:53 AM

Has the MFHA had anything to say ? She was a member.

Chester's Mom

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:04 PM

terrierman.blogspot.com

Not known for being friendly AT ALL to animal rights groups.... he quotes the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

QUOTE: Humane agents first went to the house on July 21 in response to neighbor complaints about noise and odor, said Bengal. Finding no one home, they left cards asking the property owner to contact them. When no one responded, an agent and two state dog wardens returned on July 27. Willard refused them entry and as they left the property she threw stones at the officers' vehicles, said Bengal.

They returned later that day with a search warrant and found dogs living in what Bengal described as unsanitary conditions and in need of veterinary care. Willard voluntarily surrendered 11 dogs and agreed to comply with certain conditions for keeping the rest, including inspections, he said.

"We could have charged her, but we didn't yet," said Bengal. "We could have seized the dogs, but she agreed to get medical care for the remaining dogs and spay or neuter eight of the 12 dogs" - the limit allowed under the city's decades old animal ordinance.

Since there were fewer than 26 dogs on the property (the number required for a state kennel license) there were no citations issued by the state, said Chris Ryder, spokesman for the Department of Agriculture.

The dogs that were removed were placed with Basset hound rescue groups, the PSPCA said.

The PSPCA's executive director Sue Cosby said they did not initially release any information about the incident because they thought they could resolve the issue amicably with the owner.

"The officer heading the case really went out of her way to work with the owner in an effort to have the kennels cleaned up and the dogs cared for rather than file charges and take all of the dogs,'" said Cosby in an email.

Dog breeder list serves and hunting blogs were buzzing over the weekend with news of the raid. The chatter grew to a fever pitch today with pages of posts defending Willard and railing against the PSPCA for trampling on the rights of dog owners.
END QUOTE

He also notes the limit on the number of animals has been the law there for years, it is not new.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:06 PM

Is there any group that has been organized to counter these animal rights groups?

Halla - there are no more animal welfare groups in the US. The only moderate one left is the ASPCA and they are opposed to all hunting.

An umbrella group that works for sporting rights (including protecting the GOOD and ethical hunting dog kennel owners) is the US Sportsmen's Alliance.

http://ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=240

However, some animal owners may not support hunting so this organization may not appeal to them. But this organization does lobby on behalf of sportsmen, though.

If you're an animal abuser or don't take care of your hunting dogs - they'll happily string you up and leave you to rot.

If you're an ethical person that believes in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, including the role of regulated, lawful and ethical hunting - this organization may appeal to you.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:14 PM

terrierman.blogspot.com

Not known for being friendly AT ALL to animal rights groups.... he quotes the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

That's typical for him, though. He's not as anti-animal rights as you think and he doesn't know anything about law.

But I do agree that there are always two (or more) sides to the story and that is something to keep in mind.

I'm less concerned about this specific incident - and more focused on the abuse of power, the lack of constitutional protections, the lack of checks and balances evident in this case.

More importantly for people living in other jurisdictions, is that contracting out of AC operations is becoming more common - and is considered a cost cutting measure for local government.

People differ on the contracting out of government services - but the important thing to note is that when it happens - there are many unintended consequences.

In this case - there is no doubt that there is one true innocent party - and that is the lawful owner of 3 hounds who have disappeared.

Because of the abuses of power and lack of oversight of these people - she has indeed been deprived of property and has no ability to regain it.

Again - I'm less concerned about the details of a particular incident - none of us know exactly what transpired. For all I know Wendy was eating puppies for dinner.

What I am more concerned about is the abuse of power. The lack of due process. Incompetence. Corruption. A nonprofit wielding police and political powers and a citizenry at their mercy. It happens in other states, too. Including mine.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:17 PM

That was intentional.

Kennels are cleaned in the morning. If they'd come in the morning the kennel would have been so clean you could eat off the floor. Bowls would have been filled with food or water - the place would have been sparkling.

I guess I wasn't clear... I was trying to say that doing a raid at night made them very suspect in my book. I can't imagine any kennel being perfectly clean - since dogs have to go to the bathroom. :)

So.... the choice they gave her was literally "You can surrender X number of dogs or you can surrender all of them."? How would they enforce that? I can understand how they could enforce "You give us 7 dogs or we'll seize all of them"...... of course, giving up the 7 might be easier than going through the hell of a seizure. :(

I will say that we've made the offer to people before that they could surrender the worst X # horses and we would give them a chance to improve the conditions for the horses who weren't in immediate danger. Or in instances where there's been an impending seizure, we have given the owners the option of surrendering all the horses (and that in that case, the county may not press criminal charges or may be more lenient). But the way this one was done made no sense.

*sigh* What a frightening position for the owner to be in.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:22 PM

Is there any group that has been organized to counter these animal rights groups?

I have a huge fear in supporting such a group... because I fear they would become extremists on the other side. I've seen groups of people discuss setting up something to oppose animal rights groups, but the idea they discussed was that animals were their property, no animal control should be able to ever come onto their property (whether the ACO was actual law enforcement or not), etc. And that philosophy sent me screaming away...

How do we form a moderate group that understands the need for protection of animals as WELL as the protection of the people? And insure the group stays moderate? I don't know....

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 12:29 PM

Jenn - I agree.

I remember when those Free Staters had their horses seized - some posters here told us what these folks thought about animals.

It was downright creepy.

Yes - I totally agree and I thought that's what HSUS and ASPCA were supposed to be but they are no longer.

It seems that everything is extremes now. There is no middle ground. If you don't toe the party line - you must automatically approve of or engage in animal abuse. That's creepy too.

Advocating for sportsmen is what the US Sportsmen's Alliance does but it's not truly an animal welfare group. Animal welfare is a cornerstone but it's not the actual focus.

I can no longer donate to HSUS or the ASPCA because I just don't see any value anymore. They don't actually help animals in need - it's all about policy, politics and extremism. And it's a shame.

Do you know that HSUS was heavily involved in an attempt to ban hunting with hounds in this state last year? Do you know what they told our legislature?

That we train our hounds by tossing them live kittens to teach them "bloodlust". Can you believe that?

They're just as crazy as the Free Stater types that think they animals are toasters.

Equibrit

Aug. 10, 2009, 02:24 PM

I know I would feel a lot happier if I knew the MFHA were supporting their membership. Pres's email; dennis@mfha.com

RedMare01

Aug. 10, 2009, 02:57 PM

So if she had not voluntarily surrendered, there would be some recourse and she would be able to fight for the dogs back? The PSPCA would have to prove negligence and would have to hold the dogs pending a court decision (theoretically, of course :no:)? Poor lady.

Caitlin

equinelaw

Aug. 10, 2009, 06:04 PM

JSwan - Interesting theory. Yes, if the authorities could coerce *cough* convince the person to "voluntarily" surrendering her property, then due process protections wouldn't apply.

But. Due process applies in civil as well as criminal cases - it kicks in anytime you have a property or liberty interest at stake. In the 4th Circuit, where you and I live, there is a federally-recognized property interest in animals (pets as well as livestock). So I still think the initial seizure is questionable, although it may have been mooted, in this case, by the owner's "voluntary" surrender.

That's exactly the problem. There is a 3 point test to apply to know if the administrative action was appropriate for seizure (attachment) or if there was ample time for a hearing, but there is no way to regulate a voluntary surrender. But it is still under the color of law and that's just not right.

The biggest problem with this case is that there is no recourse for mistakes because they gave the dogs away or lost them. I do not have as much of a problem with a seizure if there is time to have a hearing or some way to make sure it was needed before the animals are irreversibly dispersed. Only the most assertive and stubborn people would risk criminal charges by refusing and forcing a hearing. Those types might also appear to be cantankerous or unwilling to change. They probably are, but the proper response would be to act improperly. Then the press would make them out to be loons. Its a no win situation.

Throwing rocks was a poor choice, but I think when my dog was seized for no reason I threatened to kill the AC guy if I ever saw him on my property again. In the heat of the moment when someone comes to take your animals, you may do a lot of stupid things. Its the false sense that as Americans we have rights that leads to such shocking behavior. Now the AC man who I was mean to did not think I was really going to kill him (perhaps, we had a civil relationship for years after that), but the 4 police officers who were trying to take my other 2 dogs did change their minds when I threw a full fledged bitch fit. If I had BEHAVED, they would have killed all my dogs. Acting unreasonably and spouting off laws DID change the outcome as far as the 2 other dogs. I was not a lawyer. But I could guess the law better then the police could make up their own laws. It could have gone the other way and they might have shot me or arrested me. I do not think anyone wanted to get close enough to me to try and grab me, so they asked me to drive myself to the police station and have myself arrested for them. I called my friends instead. Angry phone calls from rich powerful people made ALL the difference in my own personal case. I got a full apology and was upgraded from "crazy bitch" to "ma'am" the next day, but it was too late. They already put the dog down and could not bring her back. I NEVER had any more problems with the police and my pets after that.

I do not like the way we do it here that can drag on for 2-4 years, nor do I like the TX method where there is no actual full hearing unless criminal charges are pressed, but without a trained lawyer standing right there to advise the owner of their rights, how do they know what to do?

I also believe there was more to the story. More warning and more hostility, but, and I hate to say this, I think if she had hired a lawyer before the problems got this far she would still have her dogs. I do understand for many people that is not financially possible, but I think she knew she had a problem brewing and just hoped it would go away. However, in the Chicago carriage horse case, there was not only a lawyer involved, but a signed court order stating the horses were fine and could stay. It was ignored. Its so hard to say. I know when my dogs were taken and my car was searched with no warrant and they police entered my house with no warrant, my neighbor, a lawyer, stood by and watched the whole thing. I marched directly over there proffering a platinum VISA card to hire him and he refused to help.

I think these types of cases will resolve themselves soon. The key is that the rescues cannot keep paying for all the animals they seize and they cannot put them all down or they will lose donors. Zoning is zoning, but the question of were they residential if they were kenneled but not enough to require a kennel license should have been decided by a judge--not my some poor woman in the middle of the night with no clue what to do. A call goes out and donations drop instead of the expected rise.

I guess, as with most things in life, educating animal owners about how to act and what to do and what rights they have BEFORE anything happens is the safest bet. The really bad ones should be charged with crimes and should have trials--not choices, but the zoning regulation cases, the questionable cases, the abuse of discretion cases? I think threads like these and education can help people be prepared if the unthinkable ever happens to them. The internet can do that. In the last Pig problem for my pigs client, she printed out the actual law and calmly showed it to the police. They had never read it. They took it well and apologized and changed their intended actions based on this new information. I guess if you own animals, take the hour to read the law and know your rights before the police show up. They just might change their minds and go away.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:09 PM

Excellent post, equinelaw.

I used to see many clients - many of them educated, informed, successful people - who would not seek legal assistance until the 11th hour - or too late.

They'd literally be contacting a law firm the day of their court appearance.

When pressed, invariably they would say things like, "they didn't think it would get this far, or, "I thought if I ignored it it would go away." Other statements like, " I wasn't going to let them tell me what to do.... " Actually rather odd statements. Purely emotional, reactionary - even petulant. Certainly not helpful at all. But some said they were too embarrassed and didn't want their reputation ruined. I can well imagine that Wendy is absolutely mortified.

What disturbs me about nonprofits acting as shelter services is that they are not acting as charities. This shelter is under a 3 million dollar contract to the city. They're contractors, not paying any taxes, who also have full law enforcement powers. They're really not answerable to anyone - not even donors. This particular shelter has been so rocked by constant scandal that I'm amazed anyone has ANY confidence in them. And they still got 3 million dollars.

The shelter here that was sued because they asserted (for many years) that they were above the law. It took someone with money and access to excellent attorney's to bring an end to that - and shelter mismanagement.

Seeing beyond Wendy's troubles to a larger picture - I'm seeing animal control outsourcing to be a tremendous danger to animal owners. We all know that rescue groups vary in their efficacy, competence, ethics, business sense, priorities, etc.

And yet any rescue - even the worst godawful one - can become your local animal control officer and decide to make an example of you. And essentially.... unless you know an influential person or have a LOT of money for legal assistance.... you're screwed.

The animal is screwed no matter what because odds are he'll be dead or will have disappeared with no trace. And that is not an exaggeration - I work in rescue and animals are literally shipped all over the US with NO accountability or record keeping - including vaccination records.

There is nothing an owner can do about it.

The "voluntary surrender" is not voluntary, and it's not a surrender.

Some states permit the investigator to perform a warrantless search.

These laws make their way through the legislature and no one bothers to read them - not even the politicians.

Last summer I wrote about a humane investigator bill and some folks didn't think it was a bad idea. The way the bill read and was being supported - would have allowed anyone to become an investigator - with NO training. Every PETA employee could have been an investigator. My MOTHER could have been one (she's one who thinks fly masks are cruel). It was supported because local governments though they'd save money by having volunteers.

Maybe they would. But we're not talking about a coupon. We're talking about law enforcement and the ability to charge someone with a crime that may destroy their entire life. Save the volunteers for the bake sales and helping bathe animals for adoption days - leave law enforcement to professionals.

The greatest tragedy, to me, is that the one who always pays the highest price is the animal. Think of Wendy's hounds.

These are bassets who live in a pack. If you hunt - you know the pack is a hounds entire life. If they become separated from the pack - it is absolutely terrifying to them. They howl. They're frightened. They become skittish.

The hounds are well socialized to the Master, staff and field. But they know those people - they love those people - but they may be afraid of strangers. Not biters - just worried. The hunt club members are part of the pack, too. It's all one big family.

They are used to running around - in large open spaces, indulging in their senses, taking in tremendous amount of exercise - and never cooped up alone. Never. They're always housed in run with their best friends - the Master or huntsman makes sure hounds are kept with their friends.

Now - imagine. Strangers arrive at night and tear them away from their home. Flashing lights, odd smells and noises. They're stuck in a dog crate in a van - and taken away to some unknown place. They're handled, segregated from hounds they've known since puppy hood.

They're stuck in some smelly kennel - and then segregated some more - more and more trips. More strangers. More strange food. Strange dogs.

Now they're far away. Terrified. Away from their pack. And the foster is convinced the animal was abused because it's scared - cementing her belief that hunters are cruel.

That hound will never hunt again. He'll never see his pack again. He's separated. Lost.

But maybe he never makes it that far. Maybe he only made it out of that dog crate long enough to have a needle stuck in his vein and he's already in a landfill.

Overly dramatic? Hell - it happened to equinelaw's beloved dog. It happened to a dog two counties over last summer. Only reason that dog is alive is because the owner knew the right person.

Folks - this happens. A LOT.

equinelaw

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:33 PM

As much as everyone hates lawyers, that is what we are here for. To sue the bastards when the system fails.

I had the same reactions as everybody else, but lawyered myself up to avoid being that helpless ever again. That is not possible for everyone, but they sure will be sorry one day if they do that to me and mine again. I can FIX it now. I just wish I could practice nationwide. I'd do it for free half the time, but I am not going to take 49 more Bar exams:)

Its a rude awakening and a feeling of violation you do not soon forget, but unfortunately, the guilty parties say the same things as the innocent. I can understand how the general public does not know who to believe and who to trust, so they trust the authorities and those that are given power.

I do not want to go backwards, but I do not want to go too far forward too fast either. Sometimes a lawsuit is just the answer to these problems. Its not like you can call the police.:no: I have had to testify 3 times in cases where they people were clearly guilty, but they still sued everyone anyway. I may not like that, but they paid for our new state SCT opinion and review of the process. Would have been cheaper to just feed the horses.

Here the animals are in limbo until its is all resolved. They are not lost or out of reach until the final ruling on the final appeal is done.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:37 PM

Here the animals are in limbo until its is all resolved. They are not lost or out of reach until the final ruling on the final appeal is done.

That's not the case in a surrender. Which is probably another reason they gave her the choice they did. Seizure means they cannot be disposed of and they'd be required to care for the hounds.

But if she surrendered them - they get what they want with no cost to them.

Bluey

Aug. 10, 2009, 09:41 PM

There are some that think we are paranoid, but after reading this situation, who would not be a little bit paranoid?:eek:

Where is my tinfoil hat when I need it.:(

equinelaw

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:05 PM

That's not the case in a surrender. Which is probably another reason they gave her the choice they did. Seizure means they cannot be disposed of and they'd be required to care for the hounds.

But if she surrendered them - they get what they want with no cost to them.

That is true, but here they would never act unless animals were dying and all had to be removed or controlled. Here we would simply not have a situation where the animals are in no danger, but they take some anyway. Its all or nothing.

Now in my small little town it depends on how rich you are and where you live. But its a crazy town with billionaires living in barns and racetracks in the center of town and different laws for different classes. Its a HUGE deal if there is a case in town and everybody knows and is watching and speaks up.

There was a racehorse next to the track kitchen a few years ago. He was not being fed. Nobody was sure what to do since he was in plain sight, so they just fed him and watered him and cared for his awful wire fence wounds. Finally someone who seemed to be in authority told a nice woman she could just take him home. The police went to arrest her for horse theft!

Not being a dummy she refused to turn herself in and they finally explained they were not after her, but the woman how had left the horse at the track. It was still in the newspaper that a horse thief was on the lose.

I think for every volunteer story that goes wrong there is a police story that goes wrong too. I have said it before, and I will say it again--no matter who is in charge they should have experience, full training and half a brain. That is something that needs to be done.

It is unrealistic to expect all rescue officials to have a PhD like Jenn, but if you make a law you have to fund it and you have to train someone to do it. Otherwise, the State should just stay out of it. People are unlikely to surrender animals to people who are not in uniform and have the power of the state behind them.

lcw579

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:06 PM

I would suspect that some of the dogs are at Mainline Animal Rescue. Here is the website: http://mlar.com/ Perhaps someone could check out the shelter. It can be difficult to get through to him but if you call about a big dog it can open doors - the little ones move quickly and bring in donations, the big ones not so much.

Bill Smith is the one that was on Oprah. He is very active on shutting down puppy mills. I also know that he often takes the more "adoptable" dogs from the City Shelter and brings them out to his Chester County facility.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:38 PM

The lawful owner of several of the hounds has been trying to get them back.

They won't return her calls anymore - and no one will divulge the location of the hounds.

ESG

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:55 PM

So has anyone figured out who this poor lady pissed off, to be treated like this? Someone wanting to shut down her "puppy mill" (like a puppy-mill puppy would ever survive in a hunting pack :rolleyes: ), or wanting to buy her property, or push her out of business for whatever reason?

I knw we are hurtling headlong towards communism in this country, but I hadn't expected to encounter the KGB just yet. :rolleyes: :eek:

JSwan, is there anything any of us can do? Like call and make a stink, or send mass e-mails, or suddenly develop an interest in hunting-bred bassetts? I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

lcw579

Aug. 10, 2009, 10:56 PM

Oh, they won't admit that they are at MLAR. However, if someone who would recognize the dogs were to go and take a walk through the shelter it might at least provide peace of mind and a place to start. I can provide a local address if anyone needs one. They only adopt within a certain geographic area.

JSwan

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:04 PM

That's awfully kind of you but I'm afraid I don't know how anyone can help.

Wendy needs to retain counsel, and so does the lawful owner of some of the bassets. I hope both have done so.

But if you wanted to do something to help animals and people, I feel comfortable making this suggestion.

Participate in the legislative process. Be aware of what bills are offered in your legislature, and understand how they may impact your life - and the lives of your animals.

If it's a good bill - support it wholeheartedly.

If it's a bad one - oppose it - but offer a solution or better language. Meet with your reps and discuss various bills and their unintended consequences. Remain above the fray of partisan politics - focus on issues - not on people of philosophies.

And keep an eye on what is going on in your local animal shelter. It's becoming as political and partisan as local school boards - and as powerful.

Hope that helps - because honestly I'm just saddened by this whole mess and I really hope that those hounds are ok.

lcw - I hope someone who knows the hounds will take you up on your offer. It would be nice to know if any of the hounds are still alive.

Ajierene

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:13 PM

Does anyone know where exactly Murder Hollow is?

I can find that it is within Philadelphia city limits, so it seems there would be a lot of houses around, but I could be off by itself a bit. I'm not sure where exactly it is, but if it is close to other houses, or fairly recently built houses, the odor and noise would likely upset 'new neighbors'.

This entire scenario seems to reek of the recent incident with the black professor and the cops. Was the call of the burglar racially motivated? maybe. Was the cop overreacting? Possibly. Was the fact that the professor refused to provide identification justifiable cause for arrest? YES!

So...did someone maybe have a bone to pick and call animal control? maybe. Were the animal control officers biased against anyone owning a dog? possibly. Could there be some hidden motive from someone wanting the property? Maybe.

Should the owner have called the animal control about the complaint when a note was left? yes.
Should the owner have thrown rocks at the officers? NO!
Should the owner have known about licensing laws in her city of residence if she wanted to breed dogs? YES!

The problem is, while there are things this country struggles with (racism, animal abuse), these instances where people appear to think they are above the law, whether that be because they lived in an area before an ordinance or law was passed or have just never been 'caught' before, hurts the main cause.

As far as I can see, the Animal Control had a right to seize some of the hounds. As far as the hounds that were borrowed from another kennel go - well, she could have said 'hey, I don't actually own those, so can those be a part of the 12 that I keep?' If she let them be seized without saying anything, then that is not the fault of the Animal Control. She may have said something and Animal Control did not believe her - especially if she wanted to keep 12 plus 'those do not count, because I do not own them'. Animal Control could have also just not listened to her.

In a city like Philadelphia, I am not surprised if Animal Control has gotten at least a little jaded and cynical. I know some Philadelphia cops and cynicism abounds in big cities.

BasqueMom

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:25 PM

A:

Check out first page--there is the kennel's side. All she got was a card left in her door--no note to call. The zoning rules were left in the kennel after the so-called authorities left.

No one ever mentioned the limit when she paid her annual kennel license fees.

Something stinks about this whole thing......

tkhawk

Aug. 10, 2009, 11:40 PM

Well the whole thing about the proffessor, I don't wan't to get into the racism thing. But I just find it really annoying that a policeman can cuff you and throw you in jail for mouthing off in your own home-whatever race you are.

I grew up in India-the only ones who dealt with police were murderers and rapists and criminals. Most others never dealt with police-well if you were stopped for a traffic offense, you just negotiate a "payment" !:lol: It is more like bargaining in a vegetable market and never do you have to worry about being arrested. The middle east is a different story-but at least you know which lines never to cross and if you stay in them, you never deal with the police either.

But here just surprised and I was reading that the U.S is the number one country in the world for number of citizens in jail. Number one. The next China has only one fourth the level of incarceration as we do.

The whole proffessor thing-forget racism-basically you have to be scared of police. I mean if this guy who is a Proffessor of Harvard can be thrown in jail and cuffed in his own home because he got a bit mouthy, then what about someone who might have a little less credibility due to a prior record or some such.

I guess one thing I learnt here is you got to know the rules and don't expect the police or any such agency such as the ASPCA to follow them. Like they say knowledge is power. Thank God for lawyers!!

Ajierene

Aug. 11, 2009, 12:15 AM

Well the whole thing about the proffessor, I don't wan't to get into the racism thing. But I just find it really annoying that a policeman can cuff you and throw you in jail for mouthing off in your own home-whatever race you are.

I understand what you are saying, but the law in every state I am aware of states that if you do not produce identification, you can be taken in. That was part of the problem - without identification they could not verify that it was his home. So the entire 'mouthing off in your own home' goes out the window. He's not the only person I know was brought into various police stations for not having identification on him and being in a questionable location (near supposed drug areas, out late at night, etc.)

Basquemom - thanks for the heads up. It has been a while since I looked at the first page of this thread. Some of the links I did not open because they were taking a while and I had other things to do.

I find this forum interesting as well:
http://www.bassethoundtown.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=399

One of the links on the first post in this thread is cited as being radical in the other forum, so that is something to think about.

I am cautious to believe that she did not know about the ordinance since other evidence points to the ordinance being around for 25 years while she has been in business for 23 years. Ignorance is not an excuse of the law.

If she had gotten a card on her door and not thought to call, but had no reason to worry, why did she not allow the officers onto her property when they came back? I know, I know 'privacy', etc. - I find that whole excuse about individual rights and privacy and how no one should have to let people inspect their properties to be most loudly spoken by people with something to hide (unregistered weapons, more animals than they are allowed by ordinance, neglected animals, etc.).

I found her address and while she is definitely within city limits, she looks like she is in a quiet neighborhood and maybe thought that as long as she is not bothering anyone, it would not be a big deal.

She is under the limit needed for a kennel license, and I have not been able to find her in a list of Philadelphia registered kennels, but my searches have not been very good to determine if she did in fact pay to be a licensed kennel. I am mostly getting boarding kennels.

I do not see her as a registered breeder with the Basset Hound Club of America, or the AKC, as far as I can tell. Is there a reason for this? Do hunting hounds not always register with them?
http://www.basset-bhca.org/Member_Info/Roster/roster1.htm

equinelaw

Aug. 11, 2009, 12:32 AM

The statement by the PSPCA.

August 10, 2009
Murder Hollow Basset Hound Update
On Friday, August 7, 2009, Humane Law Enforcement officers from the Pennsylvania SPCA conducted a pre-arranged follow-up inspection of Murder Hollow, the location of an illegal basset hound kennel in the Roxborough section of Philadelphia, PA. The owner had previously surrendered 11 dogs during the officers’ visit on Monday, July 27, 2009, due to unsanitary conditions, lack of veterinary care and more dogs than allowed by law.

Despite the time allotted to the owner to make improvements, overall living conditions remained poor at the second inspection, resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking. Graphic photos of the dogs detailing their condition and their housing have been turned over to the district attorney’s office.

We appreciate the continued outpouring of support for these dogs from the Bassett community.

tkhawk

Aug. 11, 2009, 12:56 AM

I understand what you are saying, but the law in every state I am aware of states that if you do not produce identification, you can be taken in. That was part of the problem - without identification they could not verify that it was his home. So the entire 'mouthing off in your own home' goes out the window. He's not the only person I know was brought into various police stations for not having identification on him and being in a questionable location (near supposed drug areas, out late at night, etc.)

I am cautious to believe that she did not know about the ordinance since other evidence points to the ordinance being around for 25 years while she has been in business for 23 years. Ignorance is not an excuse of the law.

If she had gotten a card on her door and not thought to call, but had no reason to worry, why did she not allow the officers onto her property when they came back? I know, I know 'privacy', etc. - I find that whole excuse about individual rights and privacy and how no one should have to let people inspect their properties to be most loudly spoken by people with something to hide (unregistered weapons, more animals than they are allowed by ordinance, neglected animals, etc.).

The Professor showed his id-not one , but two forms of id. That thing should not happen in a civilized society-especially to an elderly citizen walking on a cane. It just makes me wonder about the poor souls who have been arrested on similar charges and are now stuck in jail, because they can't pay bail or some such.

On the Bassett hound -I am sorry that whole argument of not letting the law enforcement/animal control inside because you have something to hide is not right. Why should I let a policeman or any one for that matter into my house? That is my house-if you suspect criminal activity, get a warrant-follow the law. Why is asking someone who enforces the law to follow the law make me look guilty??

The sad part is these kind of cases makes genuine, horrible abuse cases look suspect.

tkhawk

Aug. 11, 2009, 01:07 AM

Now I am not going to be rude to an officer. If someone has a complaint, I will talk and if they are reasonable and just coming to do their job, I won't mind showing them in-but that has to be my choice based on my read of the situation-not because I have to be afraid of law enforcement. But in cases like this, sorry this is just wrong. Maybe she did throw rocks-well if she had a kennel for 23 years , then this was probably her life and maybe just broke emotionally.

Me I will just throw a really good lawyer at you. But I will be extremely angry if something like this happens. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse-but you need to serve notice and give an opportunity to correct not storm in like you were taking out a drug cartel hideout.

Bluey

Aug. 11, 2009, 06:57 AM

As someone said, JSwan I think, the world is getting more and more askew, absurdity abounds.

We are not a logical, thinking society, but seem to keep getting the wrong or insufficient information and misread and overreact to it.

We here are a reflection on these forums and I can see it more and more, people just overreact, don't think the situations thru, lack of foresight to what they are standing behind and pattern forming obviuosly missing.:no:

Guess we don't only need better lab rats, but better humans.:)
We have so many humans now, we are feeding off each other to the point that out IQ's have risen several points for most of us as a species, but we are handicapped that most of us have become so one sided as to end up doing stupid thigs, like that lady throwing rocks, if she really did and that professor throwing a clearly out of place, "chip on his shoulder" tantrum and calling it "his right".:confused:

No wonder the animal rights people, with their intense focus, can outmaneuver us at every step, as in this sad situation.
Divide and conquer and we are doing it to ourselves.:(

JSwan

Aug. 11, 2009, 07:17 AM

I do not see her as a registered breeder with the Basset Hound Club of America, or the AKC, as far as I can tell. Is there a reason for this? Do hunting hounds not always register with them?
http://www.basset-bhca.org/Member_Info/Roster/roster1.htm

Let's get one thing straight.

Wendy is not a dog breeder. She does not sell dogs or breed them for profit. Hunting bassets are NOT affiliated with the AKC and they are not necessarily AKC Bassets.

Her kennel has been there for decades and is located near a nature preserve on the outskirts.

The PSPCA involved is an extremely aggressive one that is known to be very confrontational and has been rocked by repeated scandals - including disease outbreaks in its OWN shelter that resulted in the deaths of dozens of animals. It is also one that is very AR oriented - ANYONE that has a kennel is a de facto puppy mill - no matter what PA law says. They are very political and AR oriented. Ask halla who posts on this BB. She'll tell you stories that would make your nose hairs curl.

This is a kennel of award winning working dogs run and owned by a woman who is a long standing well known member of the community.

They conducted a night time raid for nothing more than a zoning ordinance violation and they are depriving her - purposefully - of due process.

She may be guilty of violating a zoning ordinance. Big deal. You know how you fix that? All she needed to do what get a form filled out by the public health department but she was never given the opportunity to even do that.

Her minor zoning violation - which was easily fixed within 30 days or so - is being used as an excuse to destroy the kennel.

Let's say your manure pile is too close to the fence. That is a zoning violation. You should have known that but you forgot because the ordinance was passed almost 30 years ago - and well.... you forget things.

You event, and the local SPCA is run by people who belong to PETA and think event riders abuse their horses. They find out about your manure pile.

Instead of giving you time to move the manure pile - which may take some time, a small army of cops comes to your house at night and takes your horses. You have no hearing. You are not charged with a crime. They will not tell you where your horses are - indeed - they may be dead. But you'll never see them again.

Then they keep coming back threatening to take the remaining horses - and still you have absolutely no right to protest, defend yourself - you just live in fear that if there is one pile of horse manure within sight - they'll take your horses. They keep coming back. They don't leave you alone. And still - you have no ability to defend yourself.

All because your manure pile was a little too close to a fence - and an animal rights group with police powers decided to target you because you event your horse.

That is what happened here. It happens all over the US and when it does no one believes that the shelters could possibly have a political agenda - but they often do.

And there is NOTHING you can do about it. You'll never see your horse again.

I'd encourage anyone following this thread to read carefully the posts by me, equinelaw and paint. Due process and abuse of power are the core issues here - not whether this individual is guilty of violating an obscure old ordinance.

The issue is that the outsourcing of animal control is problematic. Some states permit warrantless seraches - that means you have NO right to deny the police entrance to your home or barn. Some states give very broad law enforcement authority to the ACO - but require NO training of that person. Many states/localities have turned over ACO functions to AR oriented "nonprofits" that use their new powers to target specific people, groups or activities and use their badge to enforce their POLITICAL beliefs - NOT the law.

When you are forced to surrender your animals - there is no hold on those animals. The "shelter" can put them down or adopt them out no matter how innocent you are. And since you will never be charged with a crime, or have a hearing, there is no way for you to protest your innocence. You will NEVER find your animals - they will not tell you where they are.

There is absolutely no control over what a shelter can do with your animal. They can kill it, turn it over to a rescue, or to another shelter. No records are kept. The rescue can kill the animal, adopt it out, or turn it over to another rescue - often out of the state. No records, no photos - nothing.

Even if you hire the best lawyer and are cleared of any wrongdoing - you will NEVER find your pet. It's gone. Dead or vanished.

That is the reality that every animal owner has to face now. Broad police powers granted to people who have NO training, but one heck of an agenda. And now they have a badge.

I am less concerned about a specific incident - and more concerned about the overall processes that are evident here. None of us actually know what transpired between Wendy and that PSPCA so there is really no use in speculating. From what I can tell - the situation has become so adversarial that there is no hope of resolving the matter amicably. But again - I am not concerned about the specifics of this incident.

But what is evident - and not just with this spca - is that abuses of power are becoming more frequent. What is evident here - is the lack of due process.

Folks - we are ALL entitled to certain protections under the law. Whether we are guilty of a crime or not is not the issue - we are ALL entitled to some protections.

This SPCA is fraught with scandal and accusations of mismanagement and other abuses. This has been going on for a long time. It is a VERY political spca. The puppy politics of that state are complicated and very controversial. Hunting dog owners were caught in the middle - they are not breeders or puppy mills - but AR groups wanted to classify them that way in an effort to ban hunting in that state. Another separate issue but it does touch on WHY the SPCA was so aggressive.

The problem, at least for me, is that more jurisdictions are giving more and more law enforcement power to these groups, and fewer legal protections to citizens against unlawful search and seizures or other guaranteed protections.

If your local police department hired a cop, gave him a badge and a gun - but NO training - and told him to go out and enforce the law.... would y'all be ok with that? What if that guy belonged to a group that got nonprofit status but was really a political group? Would you really feel comfortable with some partisan political group given a gun and a badge?

For me - that is the problem. I want law enforcement to be part of government - to be paid employees of the state that are trained, go through proficiency tests, and who are accountable for their actions. If I am abused by such an officer - I want the ability to be able to file a civil rights complaint or have that officer disciplined.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 11, 2009, 09:24 AM

I think for every volunteer story that goes wrong there is a police story that goes wrong too. I have said it before, and I will say it again--no matter who is in charge they should have experience, full training and half a brain. That is something that needs to be done.

That's what I've been trying to get at - whether the county or city works with a nonprofit for assistance or you have local law enforcement doing the ACO work, they need to have training. We had a county here call us a few years ago to come pick up a horse they had seized. Turns out the horse was one we knew - we had investigated his case and the horse was ancient, owner was working with a vet, and doing everything we could/would. There are no laws requiring you to euthanize a horse - only to provide adequate vet care/treatment. We told the deputy we didn't want to be involved and to give the owner her horse back. (Luckily they listened to us).

Everyone in animal control work needs training. GOOD training. And if they're not able to meet some basic standards, they need to get the boot.

It is unrealistic to expect all rescue officials to have a PhD like Jenn, but if you make a law you have to fund it and you have to train someone to do it.

No one should get a PhD. Only insane people do that to themselves. :)

JSwan

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:04 AM

We told the deputy we didn't want to be involved and to give the owner her horse back. (Luckily they listened to us).

yes - lucky for the owner and the horse.

Had you not answered the phone, or this had happened in another jurisdiction - the horse would be dead and or the owner would have faced criminal charges and been ruined. And he would have been innocent of all wrongdoing.

That's fairly dramatic. Two lives hinged on a phone call and "luck". Is that remotely acceptable?

There are a LOT of seizures and rescues directed at animal shelters that are run on contracts. They're run by hoarders, by activists, there is no quarantine or biosecurity, or their employees are paid huge sums of money and they do things like ship out all the ugly, old or sick dogs to rural shelters and keep the pretty adoptable ones so their kill rates look low when they report their numbers to the state.

tkhawk

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:13 AM

cowgirljenn

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:54 AM

yes - lucky for the owner and the horse.

Had you not answered the phone, or this had happened in another jurisdiction - the horse would be dead and or the owner would have faced criminal charges and been ruined. And he would have been innocent of all wrongdoing.

That's fairly dramatic. Two lives hinged on a phone call and "luck". Is that remotely acceptable?

I agree. Completely. The people who seized the horse were sheriff's deputies. Using law enforcement to do animal control work doesn't work all the time, either. That's why we need a good training system in place and require those doing animal control work, whether they're law enforcement or nonprofits working with law enforcement, to have a certain level of training. AND we need to make sure the training is good and put on by a reputable group (Code 3 Associates comes to mind. They work with the Law Enforcement Training Institute at the University of MO).

Counties won't like it as they won't want to spend the money. Citizens won't like it as the money has to come from somewhere (taxes). Not all nonprofits will like it as some think they know everything and don't need anyone else to tell them anything. BUT it needs to happen.

In Arkansas, there's a provision in the law that says an animal shelter can seize an animal that's in 'immediate danger' without a warrant. How scary is that? We've had law enforcement want us to use our power as an "animal shelter" to seize horses before without a warrant. But arguing over what "immediate danger" is is way too scary for me. (I think the original intent was so that if an animal was down, injured, dying, a shelter could seize it and put it out of its misery if an owner wasn't present.. but the law isn't that clear/specific). Think about how much potential for abuse there is there...

JSwan

Aug. 11, 2009, 11:34 AM

Agreed.

My problem with using nonprofits (not picking on you but I am making a general comment) is that few of them are capable.

They believe they know all there is to know - they are the experts. However, at least in my experience, all of them have strong political leanings and opinions, and are closely associated with animal rights groups.

The only possible way to ensure citizens are protected from extremists hiding behind their nonprofit designation is to not give them police powers and to focus instead of good training of REAL law enforcement officers.

The notion of a charity conducting night time raids and arresting little old ladies is simply surreal.

The notion of a charity intimidating citizens and holding themselves out to be above the law is appalling (I'm referring to the case here)

The notion of a charity having a political agenda - and using their status and police powers to effectuate and implement policy - without citizen input or knowledge - is completely unacceptable.

It's as unacceptable as it would be if the KKK were to set up a nonprofit and then solicit government contracts to run prisons. They may do a good job and even be impartial. But what are the odds of that happening and who would want them to even be involved?

I understand and agree with the need to catch and punish those who harm or abuse animals.

What I can no longer support is that charities play at being cops.

We had a humane investigator program here and it was suspended. Because of rampant abuses. Some of which were so bad they compromised REAL criminal cases and abusers walked away free.

I don't want it back because HSUS and PETA have become so involved in shelter work and policy in this state that the shelters are practically satellite offices. Did you know that PETA HQ in Norfolk is also a "shelter" under Virginia law? Their kill rate is almost 100% and it's not because they take in the worst cases. They kill every animal they get ahold of.

And under proposed bills those people - all of them - would be granted the authority to seize my animals. The only requirement is a little course that takes a few hours. There is no support for more training - because legislators are convinced by the AR lobby that they can train these people.

That's the ONLY training they get. These are the same groups that tell the public that hunters train their dogs by tossing them live kittens to teach them "bloodlust". Does that sound reasonable to you?

You know - our hunter education course is several DAYS long - just to obtain a hunting license. But evidently, if you want the authority to raid a person's home and destroy their lives and animals - a few hour course will do.

The notion of those people having the ability to arrest me and put my animals in a gas chamber is...... incomprehensible. But a very real possibility in this state That bill almost passed last session and it's going to be introduced again.

I feel sorry for Wendy and the Murder Hollow Bassets. Her life as she knows it is over. Her hounds are scattered and will never be found. She may be guilty -she may not be. Another innocent owner is bereft - her hounds have disappeared.

But I am less concerned about specifics of this case and more concerned about the implications for all of us. That SPCA has a multi million dollar contract and no supervision. Citizens are powerless. No one seems to care.

My state is the same way - and I don't want it to get any worse. I want criminals locked away in a cold dark cell - but I demand the government do its job...... and abdicating its responsibility towards citizens is not acceptable.

BLBGP

Aug. 11, 2009, 05:04 PM

OK, while I can't speak for the PSPCA, and I understand your anger, there are a lot of sweeping generalizations in your posts, JSwan. You are very welcome to visit our SPCA in CA anytime - I would be happy to give you a tour and speak to you about our policies. To say that all humane officers are untrained and all SPCA's are animal rights wackos does a disservice to some truly wonderful organizations.

The fact that all SPCA's and Humane Societies are independent is both a blessing and a curse. The instant name recognition is a good thing. The ability to operate as your board, donors, and directors see fit is usually a very good thing, but can also be bad depending on who those powers are. Not having a parent org is great, except that everyone assumes the ASPCA and HSUS are parent orgs, which is very bad. That many people have a bad experience at one shelter and assume all the rest are just as bad is also a very bad thing. It's a tough, demanding, rewarding, depressing job, not for the faint of heart.

There certainly seems to be a lot of missing and/or strange information in the case. And it sounds like the PSPCA has a concerning track record recently. But that doens't mean the case should be automatically discredited. I was involved in a cat hoarding case a few years back involving 132 cats kept in horrific conditions. The woman was a former cat fancy lady who got older and started hoarding. It was bad. After we seized the cats, The SPCA was attacked left and right by other cat fanciers. They were sure The SPCA was just going to kill all the cats, had a secret agenda, demanded we give all the cats back, etc. They refused to believe all the photographic and veterinary evidence, simply because they remembered this lady as a sweet, upstanding member of their community.

I'm also not sure where you're getting that humane officers can be sworn after a few hour course. Again, I don't know PA, but here our officers all have PC 832, Humane Academy, Advanced Humane Academy, Equine Investigations, Large Animal Rescue, Advanced Large Animal Rescue, Illegal Animal Fighting, rappelling and rock climbing training, and more. It's a tough, demanding, rewarding, depressing job, not for the faint of heart.

JSwan

Aug. 11, 2009, 05:16 PM

Your state does not represent the entire country.

I work in dog rescue, and I also support good animal shelters.

Not all of them are. And in SOME states animals can be seized without probable cause, no warrant, and no due process. I've also fostered dogs pulled out of Virginia shelters run by hoarders. Not all shelters are wonderful happy places run by caring nonpartisan people.

Tear me apart all you want - I'm not the only one that feels that way, and you obviously have not kept abreast of animal rights politics in MY state.

I have. And I'm torn because I know of good shelters that do a good job. No reasonable person could suggest that Jenn is some AR nut targeting innocent people.

But if you received the email alerts I do - you'd know that not all people are like Jenn. Or you.

Just because there are good shelters filled with good people does not make outsourcing law enforcement a good idea - in general.

You may find it hard to believe, but it is possible to oppose a concept or idea, and not think shelter workers are the devil's minions. It isn't one or the other.

I am not concerning myself with the particulars of this incident. I am concerning myself with an increasing problem - animal rights groups effectuating policy through the shelter system in the US - and being given broad discretionary and law enforcement powers.

If that's not true in your state - that does not meant it isn't happening in other states or counties. The end run around due process by "surrendering" happens a great deal. And many people are coerced and don't know their rights.

By the time they find out what their rights are - the animal is dead.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 11, 2009, 05:18 PM

What's that sound? The Founding Fathers all rolling en masse in their graves? Where in the world did y'all get the idea that failure to produce an ID justifies an arrest?:eek: Somehow that part got left out of my copy of the Fourth Amendment.:lol: Y'know, the Amendment that guarantees us the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Of our selves, our hounds, or whatever.

The City issued this master licenses for all her hounds since 1986. All 23 of 'em. They knew perfectly well she had them. Unfortunately, at least in SC, licensing the dogs would not estop the City from enforcing its regulation on the number of dogs she could keep.

JSwan

Aug. 11, 2009, 05:43 PM

That's what people keep missing.

This was not an illegal dog kennel. The hounds were licensed. She's been there for decades. She's not a breeder or puppy mill.

While of course this is not an excuse for not obtaining the form from the Public Health department, a reasonable person could understand how she believed she was complying with the law.

If you look at the ordinance - another problem arises. These hounds did not live in her home (except a few old ones that need some pampering)

The hounds lived in a separate kennel apart from the "residential dwelling unit".

Whether or not this person was guilty violating an ordinance is pretty darn arguable. Is a kennel a residence? She thought not - it's a kennel. A house is a house, a kennel is a kennel.

What is also distressing is the feeding of information to the local reporter who is known to be an animal rights advocate, and the unwillingness of shelter staff to help the innocent 3rd party (lawful owner of three of the hounds seized) locate her hounds.

I'm not a wingnut and the founding fathers spun in the grave a long time ago - they spun so long and so fast they popped out in China and then asked Scotty to beam them up. :lol: And believe it or not I'm pretty liberal on many social issues.

But the day someone is accused of a crime and isn't able to defend herself is a pretty darn sad day for all of us. This story isn't unusual - and that makes it even worse.

And donor and tax money is being used for that purpose.

Arizona DQ

Aug. 11, 2009, 06:18 PM

I am posting this with permission and to maybe help any of us who may be the next target. :no:

*Forwarded with permission & for information purposes only

*What to do when Animal control knocks?"

By George J. Eigenhauser Jr. (he is an attorney at law licensed in the
State of California since 1979 and practices in the areas of civil
litigation
and estate planning)

ANTI-DOG ENFORCEMENT - What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know
Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted.?
Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally. The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response.
These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.
No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the Door...but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.
Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.
When Animal Control is At Your Door:
1. Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (I.e. They hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.
2. If you let them in, anything they find in "plain sight" can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will.
3. Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside and close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is "plain sight" and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.
B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don't, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.
C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some Animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get "in your face", causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.
4. If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a Search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewellery box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.
5. In some locations dog owners may have obtained special "breeder permits" that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.
6. Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and others know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (I.e. Backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:
1. Don't answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the Officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defense cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.
2. Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.
3. Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent
4. Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.
5. Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.
6. Don't try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.
7. Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.
8. If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first.
Repeat as necessary.
Gathering the Facts:
1. Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.
2. Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.
3. Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.
4. If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.
5. Note the names (and adresss) of any witnesses to the encounter.
6. If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.
7. Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.
8. If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.
If You Are Arrested:
1. Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.
2. Don't "explain" anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.
3. Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may "monitor" the rooms for "your protection". Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.?

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You my receve telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.
Your response should be to inquire "Are you interested in a puppy?".
If the answer is "yes", ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.
If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.
If the question asked is "What is the price of each puppy?", simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between "X" and "Y" dollars. Never say that you are selling them.
If the question asked is "Are these your puppies?", you should ask, "Why do you want to know?".
If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk's office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:
Full name, title and phone number
Agency's full name and fll addrss
Their supervisor's full name and phone number
Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)
Why the inquiry is being made
How your name and phone number were obtained
Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing
Preventative Measures:
Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.
2. Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a "remote prefix" to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.
3. Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Alwaysbe alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.
4. Don't allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.
5. Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dogbuyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn't like you parking in front of his house.
6. Anything about you that can be observed in "plain sight" from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.
7. If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the little on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.? Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.? Just say "no", no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.? When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

Hermine Stover,
Secretary Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
23280 Stephanie Perris CA 92570

Permission to cross post is granted.

Christina Coberly A.S.
Accredited Pet Training Instructor
Business Name: Access to Effective Training
Web Site: www.iamthekey. org
Group Owner of: Positivepetsittinga nddogtraining
Ontario Oregon

Miss-O

Aug. 11, 2009, 06:22 PM

PA seems to have a lot of outsourcing of govt functions. Isn't that where the judge was arrested ? They had outsourced the juvenile prison and I think the prison was getting paid by the inmate. So the prison was bribing the judge to send juveniles tot heir facility. The judge kept sending almost everyone for anything to prison, even ignored a lot of rights that kids under 18 are supposed to have. He was finally busted and from what I remember , took in more than a hundred grand in bribes?

I live in the area where this happened. Actually there were two judges investigated, and arrested, later they both plead guilty. It seems like what happened was the one judge was buddy buddy with the man in charge of the new detention center. (nothing to my knowledge was outsourced) The man in charge of the detention center seems to have been giving the judges kick backs for every child they sent there. There were kids being sent to the detention center without lawyer representation. The judges were completely taking advantage of them. In the end (one or both) received about 2.6 mill in kickbacks in, what the media is calling, a kids for cash program.

The government in PA is a disgrace, we have the 2nd largest legislation in the country, so it's very costly to run and it's also one of the least effective. Now since the FBI has been involved they are starting to find more and more corruption. School board members dealing in shady enterprises and investigations into teachers having to pay $$ to get their jobs.

I live up in NE pa and I have walked in on our local SPCA and it is absolutely DISGUSTING. I'm not talking about coming in the afternoon well after cages have been cleaned in the am. I'm talking about cages not being cleaned for possibly days. There have also been numerous stories of people finding out about their dogs who were lost being automatically put down as soon as they entered the SPCA. Some of these dogs were COLLARD!! There are also a bunch of stories of animals in need not receiving any attention and even an animal control officer who was seizing animals that were perfectly healthy and well cared for. Apparently this was a track record of hers. She had done this in several other counties as well.

PA is a MESS. I feel so sorry for Wendy and have kept her in my prayers. What a sad story.

To any legal type person. After they brought her a warrant could she have refused to do anything with the PSPCA until she got a lawyer on the property? Or had them go through the lawyer instead of her???

I feel so deeply sorry for Wendy. What a sad story.

Trevelyan96

Aug. 11, 2009, 06:35 PM

What scares me about the AR groups is how effective they are at fundraising. People don't understand that there agenda of ending pet ownership basically endangers ALL animals. Just imagine how quickly various breeds of horses and dogs will go extinct because no one is allowed to give them a job.

JanM

Aug. 11, 2009, 08:41 PM

Trev-Actually, I think a lot of people feel good about donating to PETA and the other AR groups, and don't do any research about the fact that their money is paying to seize and destroy healthy animals. They ignore the fact that they are supporting people who have said that 'exploiting' animals includes using them for service animals to help the disabled, and to take our helpless housepets and turn them loose to die in the wild. Most people don't find out about groups before donating to them, and just want to feel they are doing a good thing and can pat themselves on the back as generous and charitable people. After the NC and VA case with the PETA staffers gathering animals under the guise of finding them homes, and then were euthanizing them and dumping the bodies I can't believe anyone supports them-and they should have lost their status as a charity for misrepresentation after this incident.

foundationmare

Aug. 11, 2009, 08:54 PM

This thread has my head spinning. Is there no recourse for caring, responsible animal owners who have their animals seized? Really? Apologize for my ignorance in being late to the party, but how in the world can these flimsy organizations wield so much power?

I recognize that I'm preaching to the choir but this is over-the-top stuff. I can only imagine what the Master of Murder Hollow Hounds is going through and wouldn't wish her predicament on my worst enemy. OTOH, I'm a caring, sympathetic person so I wouldn't have done it in the first place. Shame on the buffoons who took her hounds. I grew up with Bassetts and know what a loveable, slobbering mess of love they are.

I just don't get it...and I'm not stupid.

I've witnessed disturbing neglect that I believe warrants action by AC, but nobody seems to give a tiny rat's ass. What makes this PA based group so powerful?

cowgirljenn

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:01 PM

My problem with using nonprofits (not picking on you but I am making a general comment) is that few of them are capable.

It is ok - I don't feel picked on. We mostly agree - except I think nonprofits can be used if strict guidelines are in place. I'm not sure how to make it work logistically yet - but I know the current system sure isn't working.

I was telling another rescuer today that I am so anti-government-intervention. And that I've said for years I do not want regulation of rescues - because I think the regulation would bog us down and make it almost impossible to do our work. However latelyI am changing my tune. I think there needs to be rescue oversight. I think good rescue people, horse industry people and others need to be involved in setting it up... but I think we need something. Because there are just so many bad rescues out there ... *sigh*The notion of a charity conducting night time raids and arresting little old ladies is simply surreal.

I think we agree here. I don't think the charities should be able to get warrants, serve warrants, etc. I think the nonprofits' place is acting like BEHS does - as assistance for law enforcement. Properly trained nonprofit volunteers or employees could be used to help educate horse owners and give them a chance to correct the problem and help gather info to show that the horses aren't being cared for. Then deputies/LEO should be responsible for presenting that info to the judge, getting a warrant and serving it. The nonprofit could then assist in catching, documenting the condition of and transporting animals at seizures, holding animals pending court, and presenting evidence/testimony at court.

However, I still think those people doing that need some clear training (or to be under the direction of someone with clear training).

You know - our hunter education course is several DAYS long - just to obtain a hunting license. But evidently, if you want the authority to raid a person's home and destroy their lives and animals - a few hour course will do.

The notion of those people having the ability to arrest me and put my animals in a gas chamber is...... incomprehensible. But a very real possibility in this state That bill almost passed last session and it's going to be introduced again.

We're on the same page again. I don't understand the state giving someone who is not a trained LEO the ability to arrest people or to get a warrant. To me, that's just amazing. Honestly, I DO NOT want the responsibility that goes along with the power to do either of those things.

The training I would advocate would not be real popular. The training I got was 120 hours (and cost $1500). It was pretty comprehensive. It did not include info on arresting as many of the people who take the class are not trained LEO. It did involve officer safety/how to defend yourself if attacked. But the rest covered things like investigations, body condition scoring, dealing with puppy mills (real ones, not trumped up or imagined puppy mills), coping with animals kept in meth labs (apparently a huge problem in some areas), dealing with exotics, zoonosis, etc. And I want the LEOs to go through the same training.

I am so tired of hearing about cases that are questionable. Now, I sometimes think those cases are made quetionable because we don't know all the facts and the owners are persuasive. BUT other cases are questionable because the authorities involved have no clue or acted in bad faith. I've had people want to get involved in rescue because they WANT to have the power to take animals. We don't have that power, and I run those people off. I don't need them.

I sure don't like the way our world is going sometimes. And I don't know how to stop it.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:22 PM

Can someone clarify for me and please post the actual date of the original seizure of the basset hounds and incident at the kennels?
I recently fostered 3 bassets for a rescue in another state (I don't have many particulars) and I am hoping that they were not a part of this.

Equibrit

Aug. 11, 2009, 10:57 PM

Seized on the night of July 27th.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 11, 2009, 11:16 PM

Ok. thank you. Thank God, I got my fosters before the raid occurred.
I got two bitches and a little puppy, and the bitches were very thin and wormy, so I am so relieved that they were not a part of all of this. I felt sick just thinking about it.

Anne FS

Aug. 12, 2009, 12:29 AM

What's that sound? The Founding Fathers all rolling en masse in their graves? Where in the world did y'all get the idea that failure to produce an ID justifies an arrest?:eek:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

fivehorses

Aug. 12, 2009, 01:55 AM

Ajierene

Aug. 12, 2009, 09:06 AM

I am sorry for this woman and her bassetts. This seems wrong on so many accounts. If she refused to surrender her dogs, and they seized them, would she have had more rights? I guess it goes back to my initial question.
Hey equinelaw, please tell me aiken is different...and I have already discovered HOA and deed restricted communities should not be allowed to exist...crazy.

See, this is where I start to wonder. Why did she not refuse to surrender? Why, if you thought you were doing nothing wrong, would you willingly surrender your animals? I sure wouldn't.

I have been caught by nosy neighbors and ordinances/laws before. I was technically wrong and I paid the fines. It sound like something similar happened with this woman. Either the kennel was going into disrepair due to maybe the woman being overwhelmed or a new neighbor moved in and simply decided they did not like living next to a kennel.

We talk about it a lot in my area - people move out of the city into the country, right next to a horse farm then start complaining about the horses. Did you not see it when you moved in? All the barn owners I know that have had this problem have had law on their side as far as local ordinances about manure grazing and so forth, but you have to be sure you are doing everything right. I have also heard about people getting annoyed with developers getting rid of their trails and insisting on riding on other people's property because they have been riding there forever. Well, you had a deal with the previous owner and if that person does not want you trail riding across his backyard, that's his prerogative.

I know of several instances where someone has been doing the same thing for years and no one cared. Until a new neighbor moved in and did not like it. It seems like this woman did not have a kennel license. If she had a kennel license, if she had allowed animal control in to begin with, if she had not thrown stones at the animal control, I would be more willing to believe the 'all animal control in PA are evil' line. But not knowing the woman and not knowing the actual officers in charge, I just don't know. I would like to see the pictures of the kennels, I think that will tell the true story. Right now there is a lot of conjecture and he-said, she-said.

As far as JSwan's example of a manure pile - well, I should have known. Wherever you decide to live, you need to know the laws and regulations of the area. That goes for local traffic laws, ordinances, Home Owner's Associations or whatever. The point is, don't open the door for the people that are looking to tear you down.

Fivehorse's experience indicates this - she did not break any ordinances and even though the person out to get her tried to put new ones in, he still had to lie in order to try to get her to in trouble.

JSwan

Aug. 12, 2009, 09:39 AM

For the LAST time - she did not "let" anyone in.

The cops come to your house with a warrant. You cannot refuse them entry.

They start walking around your house and can look anywhere that might be enough room for a dog to fit (depending upon the wording of the warrant)

They walk up to you and say:

You have two choices.

Turn over all the hounds.

Turn over a few.

How could any reasonable person conclude that the hounds were "willingly surrendered". Did she even know she could refuse to turn them over?

If she did - she may have known that the result of refusing meant ALL the hounds were taken and she would leave the house in handcuffs and would never see ANY of the hounds again - and she'd stay in jail until she came up with bail money. She's an old lady. A retired teacher.

She's not Michael Vick.

That's the choice people face - that is the reality.

There is a difference between ensuring animals are taken care of, and targeting people and destroying them.

If you approve of the way this was handled - then I am very sorry for you. Hopefully you will never open your door to find a bunch of peta people with a warrant who haul off your horses and arrest you because you didn't clean your stalls to their satisfaction.

That's how ridiculous some of these cases are. You think I'm exaggerating - I've seen it.

Heck - I caught an episode of that show Animal Cops - the one with the chick with that blond ponytail.

She ordered a horse seized - an "abandoned horse". Camera pans over to the field. Nice glossy horse grazing quietly in a field. Several "humane investigators" start chasing the horse to catch it. Horse starts trotting and cantering around.

She says - Oh look - it's been abused. It's afraid of people.:rolleyes:

She sees an empty grain pan - Oh look - no one is feeding it. (field is full of lovely grass and horse is in excellent weight):rolleyes:

Plenty of clean fresh water - but she skips over that. Convenient.:rolleyes:

The idiots eventually catch the terrified animal and manage to get it on a trailer without killing it. Awful to watch.:rolleyes:

Cop looks into the camera and describes how awful this all is and leaves a note for the owner - taped to the gate.

That lady doesn't know her a** from a hole in the ground - she just seized someone's perfectly well fed and content horse.

If you're saying that you think it's ok for the cops to come seize your animals because of a minor zoning violation - then I really feel sorry for your animals and I hope nothing bad ever happens to them.

A zoning violation is NOT animal abuse.

That PSCPA is very controversial. Long before this incident. Focus on the details of this incident if you want - I see this as another abuse of power by people with a badge and an agenda. It's not the first time they've done it - they've been in trouble for it before - and they did it again.

It happens in other states, too. In some - the shelters are FAR worse than the places the animals were seized from.

Let's also keep something else in mind here. Coercing someone into surrendering their animals means the spca can euthanize or dispose of the animal immediately. There is no hold.

From a business perspective (this spca has a 3 million dollar contract) it makes sense. Why house animals when you can get rid of them? Greater profits if you don't have to house or feed animals while you wait for a court date.

If y'all think money is not a factor you're very naive.

But it's a moot point. Her hounds are gone forever. If she was guilty of abuse or neglect they would have seized all of them - either when the warrant was served or later.

They're obviously tired of dealing with it and turned the matter over to the DA - now the DA gets to decide whether to drag an old lady, a retired teacher, into the county lockup.

Now that will be interesting - if the DA refuses to press charges - guess what. Her hound are still dead or missing.

I'm not guilty of any zoning or license violations and I never have been. But there are people in my county that are very very eager to poke a nose into all our barns and yards and they work with PETA.

I'd be happy to give them your address if you're ok with them looking around your yard and barn.

ETA- let's be clear about another thing. I'm not defending wendy specifically. I wasn't in her house, and we are NOT friends. My perspective on this incident is one of a fellow animal owners - and a sportsman who knows what AR groups have been up do around here. It's not all peace love and flowers, and it's not always a group of well trained, educated volunteers helping animals in need.

These contracts are very lucrative. Nonprofits do not pay taxes. The political partisan nonprofits can use these powers to implement THEIR policies and opinions. There are legitimate due process concerns and there are MANY people and organizations that have noticed that.

I'm not focused on the person or her state of mind or particular problems - I'm focused on a larger picture. For every excellent rescue, shelter or nonprofit out there there are others that are horrible, political, or extremist.

If you're lucky - you will deal with the good guys. If you aren't - you're in danger.

Personally - I don't think luck should factor into law enforcement.

Bassetnut

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:16 AM

Crossposting the message below from my dog list:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

FW: PA: SPCA Outrage in Philadelphia

http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/#comment-140915

http://tinyurl.com/nlwada

We are asking all concerned dog owners to send an e-mail to Susan Cosby, CEO of the PSPCA, scosby@pspca.org, demanding the release of the dogs to one of the hound packs that is willing to take them in (of which there are several). It's unfortunate that the pack owner surrendered the 11 Basset Hounds, thus giving the SPCA the right to dispose of them in any way they wanted. Basset Hound people have been notified of this outrage and I'm hoping we can flood Ms. Cosby to the point where she will give in and come clean about the whereabouts of the dogs.

Please help.

Barbara Wicklund
AKC Delegate
Basset Hound Club of America

Can you tell me which dog list this was on? I haven't seen it on any of the ones I belong to. I did hear that Barbara was looking into the situation.

Ajierene

Aug. 12, 2009, 02:12 PM

For the LAST time - she did not "let" anyone in.

I think misinterpreted. I was mentioning the initial conversation between the animal control officers and Wendy. The one where she refused entry and, according to reports, threw rocks at the officers. I am not talking about their return visit with the warrant. Why did she not let them into the house and kennel the first time?

How could any reasonable person conclude that the hounds were "willingly surrendered". Did she even know she could refuse to turn them over?

Isn't it 'turn over a few or we are taking them all'? That, to me, is the difference and unless I misread a previous post, is the difference. If the animal were seized, they would have to be held (not available for adoption or euthanasia) until after a court hearing. If they are surrendered, they are no longer the property of the owner and the 'new owners' (animal control) can do what they see fit with the animals.

If she were taken in, it is not a given that she would have to put up bail money to be released. She could be released on her own recognizance - if she were arrested and officially charged with a crime.

That PSCPA is very controversial. Long before this incident. Focus on the details of this incident if you want - I see this as another abuse of power by people with a badge and an agenda. It's not the first time they've done it - they've been in trouble for it before - and they did it again.

This is where you and I differ. I do focus on the specifics of the case because every case is different. This could be another case of the corrupt PA SPCA abusing power, but it may not be. I would hope any judge/jury/officials looking into the case see it as an individual case as well, rather than lumping it in with all the abusive kennels in PA just because it is a kennel or seeing it as PA SPCA abuse just because this group did the seizure. That kind of blanket thinking can send innocent people to jail and let guilty ones go.

ETA- let's be clear about another thing. I'm not defending wendy specifically.

I am not defending the PA SPCA specifically, just looking at the available facts in the case. There just do not seem to be enough available to me to form a definite opinion on the subject.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 12, 2009, 02:28 PM

I think misinterpreted. I was mentioning the initial conversation between the animal control officers and Wendy. The one where she refused entry and, according to reports, threw rocks at the officers. I am not talking about their return visit with the warrant. Why did she not let them into the house and kennel the first time?

Well, I don't know, but she was certainly within her rights to refuse them entry. Do you think things would have gone better for her if she had let them in on their first visit?

I actually have let AC in, on a couple of occasions, to demonstrate that neighbor complaints were unfounded. This was years ago. But having read about this fiasco, I wouldn't do so again.:no:

Nlevie

Aug. 12, 2009, 04:54 PM

I have just been reading this and can't believe someone has the nerve to say "it's her own fault for signing them over !?" If official police-type people came to my door and gave me those same options, it would never occur to me that I had a right to tell them a). no you can't come in without a warrant (I know I'm not doing anything wrong - what do I have to hide! Of course my animals are well-cared for. . .) and b). if they do come in and demand I sign either 1/2 my animals or they'll take all of them ! I'm supposed to KNOW to say NO - neither ! You have to leave now ?

I am a law abiding citizen who "assumes" that legal authorities know what they're doing and wouldn't screw me over without explaining all my rights ? So I guess I'm stupid too !

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 05:06 PM

It would behoove everyone to review the laws in their area and to know what their rights are regarding search and seizure. We in America also have this thing called a Constitution.......

Speaking as someone who has gone on kennel searches and also served warrants, it usually goes much better if the person lets us in, we do our thing, if we find a problem we may or may not cite them and say we will be back in x days to see if the problems have been or are being corrected.
If the people refuse to consent to let us in, and tell us eff off get a warrant (which is totally their right) and we have to go thru all that a&* ache, then yes it will not go nearly as well.
We would much prefer usually to conduct these matters in as positive a way as possible with as little hassle as possible.
If law enforcement in any capacity shows up at your property you totally have the right to refuse them entry and tell them to get off your property.

If you do let them in, it should go without saying call your lawyer immediately. And you can also ask them to leave at any time, which they must do. And consent to enter the property is not consent to search. What they can readily see is one thing but they may not search without consent

**throwing rocks is usually not an acceptable response and never ends well. Coming across as the crazy dog lady does you no good at all. In my jurisdiction you would be charged with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and carted off to jail

And it is absolutely right that it is better to have the animals seized, Then it takes days or even weeks to get a court hearing for the shelter or whatever to get custody of the animals and place them out and so forth. And you may get them back at the hearing.

If you surrender them, you are surrendering your ownership of the animals and giving them to the agency that is taking them to do what they see fit.

I must say that if I were a kennel owner I think I would review the law and know my rights before the PSCA or whoever they were came a knockin, that does not seem to be the case here.

and of course all that i have stated about my experiences applies to my area, animal officers in some other areas seem to be a bit off the chain, so to speak, it appears as though there are some issues and overzealousness

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 05:12 PM

I am a law abiding citizen who "assumes" that legal authorities know what they're doing and wouldn't screw me over without explaining all my rights ? So I guess I'm stupid too !

It is not our job to explain all of your rights to you (other than Miranda, if it becomes necessary). It is our job not to violate them, but it's your responsibility to know them.
Generally we won't "screw you over" but we aren't going to sit there and spell it all out for you. We aren't going to tell you you have the right to tell us no or ask us to leave.

We're gonna ask and if you say yes, well game on.

If you're smart and say no or I want to call my lawyer or I want you to leave that's ok too, that's your right.

When I train new officers, I tell them we are kind of like vampires. Without a warrant generally we can't come in unless invited, but once you let us in, you might be f&*^#*.

It's on everyone to educate themselves as these things pertain to their individual situation.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 12, 2009, 05:24 PM

When I train new officers, I tell them we are kind of like vampires. Without a warrant generally we can't come in unless invited, but once you let us in, you might be f&*^#*.

:lol::lol::lol::yes: Absolutely true.:yes: I hope you don't mind if I steal your analogy to explain the same to my clients.:D

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 05:41 PM

Most definitely. I have to say, it is kind of a strange analogy, but i have never had a recruit forget yet that we either have to have a warrant or be invited, except in certain cases which I'm sure you know but I'm not going into here (exigent circumstances etc)

Equibrit

Aug. 12, 2009, 06:17 PM

A private person, minding their own business should not have to defend themselves against this kind of intrusive police action.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 06:50 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with you Equibrit.
But if there is a complaint, and apparently there was at least one in the Basset hound situation, law enforcement/animal control have to investigate it. And then it goes from there.

Ajierene

Aug. 12, 2009, 07:50 PM

Well, I don't know, but she was certainly within her rights to refuse them entry. Do you think things would have gone better for her if she had let them in on their first visit?

I actually have let AC in, on a couple of occasions, to demonstrate that neighbor complaints were unfounded. This was years ago. But having read about this fiasco, I wouldn't do so again.:no:

I don't know if it would have gone better. That's my point - I don't know.

As Jaegermonster said - throwing stones in never a good way to get on the good side of the law.

AiryFairy

Aug. 12, 2009, 09:20 PM

So does anyone know the current status of this case, has she got an attorney and trying to get her dogs back? It makes me sick, especially when I read these two stories, people actually caught in the act of abusing their animals and they get to keep them. WTF is wrong with the law??

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090807-NEWS-908070376

fivehorses

Aug. 12, 2009, 10:21 PM

cowgirljenn

Aug. 12, 2009, 10:22 PM

If law enforcement in any capacity shows up at your property you totally have the right to refuse them entry and tell them to get off your property.

If you do let them in, it should go without saying call your lawyer immediately. And you can also ask them to leave at any time, which they must do. And consent to enter the property is not consent to search. What they can readily see is one thing but they may not search without consent

AND you can allow the officer to enter but not allow the humane society/spca person in. And if you do let them in, you can pick the hs/spca person out (well, ask them/require that they leave) even if you prefer to allow the LEO to remain.

If you surrender them, you are surrendering your ownership of the animals and giving them to the agency that is taking them to do what they see fit.

AND just because you surrender them doesn't mean that you can't still be charged. We did have a case where a guy had about 30 horses, only 7 in bad shape. He surrendered the 7. Two of them died and the county's prosecutor decided to press charges (he was found guilty).

equinelaw

Aug. 12, 2009, 10:28 PM

just a question and clarification.

So, if an aco, cops, etc show up to seize my animals, should I not comply and voluntary give them up, BUT, have them seized, so I can fight them in a court of law, and in fact, protect my animals from going missing?
JSWAN and EQUINELAW, a few pages back I understood that was what you were saying.
also, the steps to take, thank you to whomever posted that.

As an aside, I had an incident with a new neighbor and manure, odor, etc, etc. He worked as an aide to our US congressman(a republican) and basically almost had my horses seized by creating a new ordinance in our town where if a neighbor complained of odor, and the town agreed, they could remove the odor.
Fortunately for me, although my own town was in this guy's pocket, our state dept of agriculture came to my defense finally. Granted it was a two year process and ongoing complaints but the last complaint was an outright lie and well, the state didn't like being called out and being lied to.

It was an eyeopener for me. I later found out, the deal was...the town wanted corp of engineer fields that were designated for ag to be used as athletic fields. the aide agreed, and in return I was harrassed and the town went along with him, even allowing him to write some of the notices and letters to me(under the town signature). It was quid pro quo.

the motiavation...he wanted my land, and thought he could force me out...since everyone in this town knows, my horses are my life, they go, I go.
Its a vulnerable achilles heel.

I am sorry for this woman and her bassetts. This seems wrong on so many accounts. If she refused to surrender her dogs, and they seized them, would she have had more rights? I guess it goes back to my initial question.
Hey equinelaw, please tell me aiken is different...and I have already discovered HOA and deed restricted communities should not be allowed to exist...crazy.

Yes, it is different in Aiken. We have clearly outlined codes and regulations that are never enforced and our economy is based on keeping the horse people happy. And you got me:) If they go after one person for personal reasons they will have to go after EVERYONE and you can bet your sweet bippy that wont fly here. Private nuisance actions yes, State action, not unless you are really poor.

The laws are applied to poor people differently then rich people. You may feel poor, but you would fall under the rich category for purposes of your legal rights. I once got a letter about a code violation where they had switched up the intended recipient. I got the rich Drs letter and he got mine. The differences were appalling. They suggested a small fine for him and threatened to seize my property.

We have an entire section of code about horse keeping and manure management. About 98% of county residents do not have any clue or abide by the law. They do in the city, but not the county. Who wants to make 98% of the voters mad? If they go after one person for no reason, then I dearly hope that person calls me. Unfortunately, even in Aiken most people believe you cannot fight city hall and just roll over.

Equibrit

Aug. 12, 2009, 10:30 PM

equinelaw

Aug. 12, 2009, 10:52 PM

Please respond rather than react.
So, if an aco or police come to my home and suggest I surrender my animals, it is actually better to have them seized than surrendered?
Is the reason that the animals will have to be held until the trial date?
wheras if they were surrended, then well, good bye for sure to them?

I don't know the laws that well, but I would be lilke many others, sure come see how well cared for my animals are. But that could in fact be very detrimental.

On the other hand, I can totally understand how Wendy or any other law abiding citizen can get grossly intimidated, and be persuaded to surrender, thinking they might be doing the best thing.

I guess we need to be more assertive and say no, i am not surrendering my animals, charge me, and then let the due process happen, and at least my animals are in a secure location pending outcome of the trial. Am I understanding this correctly or am I totally not getting it. Sorry to be so basic, but this is quite scary. I love my animals and would probably kill or die if someone took them from me.

If you have a choice between being arrested or surrendering your animals and you do not think you have done anything wrong, the go to jail. You can get bailed out and try and get things straightened out. You have NO LEGAL recourse if you surrender your animals. Its done, Its over. There is no hearing to trial in which to tell your story, no evidence to inspect and and no obligation for anyone to inform you of where your animals went and no chance to ever get them back.

The best you could hope for, after a few hundred grand and years of lengthy appeals, is some money and maybe an apology. You will still not get your animals back unless they can be found and someone willingly gives them back.

With hindsight, these cases we have been discussing would have been different if the owners had just moved the animals before the police showed up, but it is hard, very hard, for the average American to "get" that they do not have the rights they think they do. Its deeply ingrained in all of us that only bad guys and criminals have to worry about laws and police actions. Its just not true.

I cannot convey in words how bad I felt after they took my dog. Yes, I was upset about the dog, but I was also upset by the HUGE dose of reality I had been served. I was instantly introduced to THE REAL WORLD. I had just bought my first house and moved in a few months earlier. It took me 2 years before I unpacked. I felt that violated and it seemed like one big illusion that I "owned" anything.

Like most people, I did not have "a lawyer" on retainer to just call when the police showed up. I get a little amused at how often that term is thrown around. Call your lawyer immediately, like we all have them on speed dial and retainers and they answer the phone and come rushing over in the middle of the night. Pish:) And we can just stroke out a $5K check for their services.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:09 PM

All you know is that the PSPCA SAID there was a complaint.

actually I have read and heard other things about this specific situation from other sources than what has been posted here, but lets don't go there. So far there hasn't really been anyone on this thread that has first hand knowledge of anything that happened at Murder Hollow is there? there are two sides to every story and the truth can usually be found in the middle somewhere

Even in the abstract, if there is a complaint made then animal control/law enforcement has a duty to investigate it. If the subject is uncooperative then there is no choice but to proceed to plan b.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:14 PM

AND you can allow the officer to enter but not allow the humane society/spca person in. And if you do let them in, you can pick the hs/spca person out (well, ask them/require that they leave) even if you prefer to allow the LEO to remain.

AND just because you surrender them doesn't mean that you can't still be charged. We did have a case where a guy had about 30 horses, only 7 in bad shape. He surrendered the 7. Two of them died and the county's prosecutor decided to press charges (he was found guilty).

and all of that is all also true, unfortunately.
I always ask the owner to surrender the animal since it makes life easier for the animal, at least in my world since I don't make bs cases that don't need to be made. Sometimes they don't and we have to seize them, but usually they just sign them over.
I can't believe some of these horror stories people are posting on here, they are just atrocious. esp equinelaw and the dog stabbed with the pitchfork, that is awful.

As a previous poster said, if you really believe you are in the right, then make them get the warrant, force them to seize the animals, and go to jail. You'll get bailed out.
At least that way your animals will be relatively safe or at least accessible for awhile, pending the outcome of the court hearing, which will take a while to schedule etc.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:20 PM

Please respond rather than react.
So, if an aco or police come to my home and suggest I surrender my animals, it is actually better to have them seized than surrendered?
Is the reason that the animals will have to be held until the trial date?
wheras if they were surrended, then well, good bye for sure to them?

I don't know the laws that well, but I would be lilke many others, sure come see how well cared for my animals are. But that could in fact be very detrimental.

On the other hand, I can totally understand how Wendy or any other law abiding citizen can get grossly intimidated, and be persuaded to surrender, thinking they might be doing the best thing.

I guess we need to be more assertive and say no, i am not surrendering my animals, charge me, and then let the due process happen, and at least my animals are in a secure location pending outcome of the trial. Am I understanding this correctly or am I totally not getting it. Sorry to be so basic, but this is quite scary. I love my animals and would probably kill or die if someone took them from me.

the animals cannot be adopted, otherwise placed etc until they belong to whomever seized them. If you don't surrender them there has to be a hearing held before a judge, magistrate or whatever you have in your area to award custody of the animals to the seizing entity (basically they can't give away or sell what they don't own). And the burden of proof is on them to prove that you are neglectful, abusive etc,not on you to prove you aren't.
It is more of a pain in the ass for the agency to seize them. If you surrender them, you are giving them your animals, plain and simple. If they have to seize them there is lots more paperwork and administrative stuff they have to go through.
In my area, if we do have to seize and have a hearing and we win at the hearing, we request that the judge issue a judgement against the owner for the costs of the hearing and also for the costs associated with maintaining the animals from the time of the seizure until the hearing, so that is something to be aware of also. I don't know if they do that everywhere but we do it here.
With a large seizure (like the dogfighting ring we did with 115 pitbulls) it was a lot of $$ by the time everyone was vaccinated, dewormed and fed etc for 3 weeks before the hearing.

AiryFairy

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:22 PM

Oy - I said two stories and forgot to post the link to the second one. It boggles my mind how someone's pack is swiped away from them in a commando raid, when crap like this occurs, and this chick is in court with a big smile on her face.

http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=145&ArticleID=46477

Jaegermonster

Aug. 12, 2009, 11:32 PM

Good lord that was an awful story about that poor horse.
We had one here, not even close to that one but a horse neglect case.
We seized 3 horses from this lady that we had repeated complaints on, kept them for months and rehabbed them and everything else, then in court she got probation and they gave her the horses back since they were able to be rehabbed.
Well, 7 months later we seized 2 horses that were almost starved and exhumed and photographed the skeleton of the third.
that time she finally went to jail.

AiryFairy

Aug. 13, 2009, 06:44 AM

With a large seizure (like the dogfighting ring we did with 115 pitbulls) it was a lot of $$ by the time everyone was vaccinated, dewormed and fed etc for 3 weeks before the hearing.

And then what happened, were they all euthanized anyway because they were fighting dogs?

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 07:10 AM

As Jaegermonster said - throwing stones in never a good way to get on the good side of the law.

Too true.

We had a thread a while back about the strangest trespassing story I'd hear in a while. Many folks advocated the use of force - deadly force against even the most mild civil trespass.

And some of those folks are now saying don't throw rock at the cops.

My point is - it's all talk until reality hits you in the face - and none of us knows how we will react when faced with an incredibly frightening, emotional, or even sinister situation. If the individual is overwrought or is incapacitated in some manner it makes the situation even more dangerous (especially for law enforcement).

Some of us on this BB say things like, if anyone tried to take my animals I'd shoot first and ask questions later. Or - I'd be on the phone to my lawyer that very second.

Equinelaw already pointed out that very few of us have lawyers on retainer - and if you've ever had to consult counsel it is not something that happens quickly. Or without extraordinary cost.

Another thing to consider is that it is easy to assert that you should just let yourself be arrested.

But think about the reality of being arrested, especially for those who are employed or have a security clearance.

You can lose your job and experience a great deal of other trouble, including the derision of the public, death threats, all kinds of things. For many people - arrest is a terrifying thought and an act that will ruin them.

There are many layers here, and like Jaeger I know more of this story as our community is very small. But I also know a great deal about the puppy mill politics in that state - there is a reason this story was first publicized by reputable breeders. It's because that state has become a hotbed of AR activity. And this spca has been at the forefront. So it's understandable that people are suspicious - because they know this spca for what it is.

But what I am concerned about is that this spca isn't what it holds itself out to be and I'd encourage people to verify any information coming out of that spca - they've been caught lying before. It is a spca fraught with problems - and citizens are powerless to fight them.

-------

A citizen compromises themselves and gives up constitutional rights - without benefit of counsel - when forced to surrender their animals. They can still be prosecuted - and anything they have done or said when "cooperating" with the spca will be used as evidence against them - and again - they have not been notified of their rights - including the right to consult with counsel.

Indeed - that is the case here. Wendy faces prosecution now because whatever she did did not satisfy "someone". She has been allowing those people into her home - repeatedly. Any communication will be used against her. During this time they have been collecting "evidence" - and she never knew. To her - she was "cooperating". Whatever that means.

The spca, in the information they provided to a reporter, makes it seems that refusal was somehow proof of guilt. But refusing entry for a warrantless search is everyone's constitutional right - guilty or innocent. I will NEVER allow law enforcement into my home without a warrant. Ever.

Basically what happens is that when a person is faced with this type of "charity" - a group that has been given very broad powers, is that they are deprived of due process and other rights and they don't even know it. The threat of prosecution is held over their head in order to obtain "cooperation", and they are forced to endure repeated violations - only to still face prosecution in the end. They are empty promises - used to gain cooperation. It's a deceptive and deceitful practice. It is a practice that is fraught with potential for tremendous abuse.

People may say - well - if she's not guilty she doesn't have anything to worry about. That's not true.

She could be any one of us - because if you live in a jurisdiction that follows this type of practice - we will all be give the same treatment. If you're lucky, the officer knows that the fly mask is not a blindfold, and that your dirty stall is just a dirty stall - not evidence of neglect.

The problem is - when the officer is a PETA person, a badge, and no knowledge of animal husbandry. In which case - any one of us might end throwing rocks at the cops, too.

ETA - I noticed afterwards that some folks want more information about this case. You won't receive any until the trial - if there ever is one. The PSCPA has washed their hands of this.

The only information you might receive is through the PSPCA - which is already in so much trouble 6 months into their 3 million dollar contract this incident pales in comparison.

Another source might be their unofficial spokesperson - the local reporter who is an animal rights activist.

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 08:31 AM

Trakehner

Aug. 13, 2009, 09:02 AM

No offense - but this statement verifies many of the concerns I have had for many years. The fact that "it won't go as well for us" if we exercise our right to demand a warrant.In my state - animal rights groups are seeking the same powers as law enforcement officers - up to and including the right to conduct warrantless searches. Some of these groups have stated their intent to monitor and target hunting dog owners and clubs. And you're telling me that if those people get a badge I'm supposed to let them into my home and take my beagle napping on the couch?

In VA some were pushing for the animal-nazi's to have full power to go after "animal violations"...of course, these groups qualify violations as not kissing your dog's butt every night.

The animals rights "SS" are scary and their attitude of, "Better not piss us off comrade or we may look at other things going on"...evil people wrapping themselves in the flag of "we're only looking out for the most innocent of creatures...do you hate dogs and cats?" BS...evil is evil, too many warped and screwed up people without a life or family - hating any others unlike their own twisted selves.

Sorry, but suggesting we give up our rights or it might go worse for us is evil, warped and any person suggesting this behaviour should be the last person ever trusted with anything involving judgement/responsibility or morals.

pezk

Aug. 13, 2009, 11:30 AM

Where does home end and property begin related to warranted searches? Is a barn an extension of your house? And is there any official that has a right to walk on your property and look around without your knowledge and consent?
I was told that a town offical and a representative of your insurance company have a right to walk on your property without your knowledge or consent. They just can't enter your house.
This has happened a number of times to people when their homeowner's ins representative walked on the property and saw dogs that were listed on the ins co huge list of banned breeds. The people then lost their ins if they didn't get rid of the dogs.
So if any of these people came on your property and were kicked by your horse and injured,or attacked by your dog, the homeowner would be liable? How is that right? Why don't they have to have permission?
pezk

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 13, 2009, 12:32 PM

No offense - but this statement verifies many of the concerns I have had for many years.

The fact that "it won't go as well for us" if we exercise our right to demand a warrant.
<snip>

In my state - animal rights groups are seeking the same powers as law enforcement officers - up to and including the right to conduct warrantless searches. Some of these groups have stated their intent to monitor and target hunting dog owners and clubs.

And you're telling me that if those people get a badge I'm supposed to let them into my home and take my beagle napping on the couch?

Jaegermonster is entirely correct.:yes: It's like what happens with the prosecutor's office - I used to hear, "I'll give your guy [let's say, two years] but if he makes me pick twelve and go to trial he's lookin' at [ten]." I always wondered why making the state prove its case merited additional punishment.:winkgrin: :lol:

But Jess - if the AR groups show up at your house, I suppose you will act like the tough lady you are and tell them to pound sand. In a very polite fashion, of course, because tough ladies are still, well, ladies.:)

I think we all have the tendency, when someone shows up and absolutely shatters our lives (with an arrest, or a seizure of our animals, or whatever) to think that we can fix it right then and there and make it go away if we just knew the right thing to do. Because we like to think we still have some power to affect the situation we've just found ourselves in.

Now, no offense to any law enforcement folks present, but the nice officer is entirely aware that this is how we feel. So s/he says (some variation of), "I can help you if you'll . . . . " And we think, "Great. Now I understand how to regain some control." So we do as the nice officer says.
And it almost never, ever turns out well, trust me.:no:

It certainly did not in this case, did it? I'm sure that master thought she was doing the absolute best thing for her animals at the time - but really, it wasn't a situation conducive to rational decision-making. What happened is that ten of her hounds are now lost. And the county can say, "But she gave them to us." And so she did. Now, had she not, all the hounds might have been seized - in fact, all the hounds might now be dead. I had that very thing happen in one of my cases - dogs were seized and killed within twenty-four hours. But at least she would have some right of redress.

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 12:57 PM

But at that point, Paint, your client has been formally charged and is represented by counsel. Negotiations are normal (if annoying)

What the owner is faced with here - is that essentially the charge, trial and conviction is done entirely without benefit of counsel. On the spot. Do it or else. Surrender!

It is in essence, an expedient controlled entirely by the "officer". The government or its contractor with its own private agenda.

I think that's a pretty crucial difference - as aggravating as it is to deal with a sniggering DA that is holding a sword over your clients head - at least your client has an attorney to advocate for him. To protect him from abuses or excess zeal on the part of the government.

In the case of the animal owner - guilty or innocent - that is not the case. They're backed into a corner in their own home. Often, many vehicles, unidentified people not in uniform, or many uniforms, animals may be stressed or frightened - and there is an officer in their face saying - you better cooperate or else.

The concern about the cost of feeding and housing livestock or pets is simply not an excuse for any excess zeal on the part of government. For a "charity" that wants to play at being cops - they are taking advantage of their nonprofit status to avoid taxation, bring in donor money, and still make a very good profit on their multi-million dollar contracts. It is in the charity's interest to force people to surrender their animals as they do not need to feed them. Increases profit, and their have better numbers to report.

In no scenario are the legal rights of the accused protected. Indeed, there are no protections afforded the accused, because there is no formal accusation. It's all done under the table so to speak. There is no record - just the word of "someone".

How many people are out there that have been victimized in this manner? I used to think cases of surrender were justified - always.

Now I'm really wondering. Not only that, but I think I understand that Harvard professor a little bit better. When you know (as I do), that something you are part of has been the subject of misinformation, prejudice, lies, lawsuits, and even threats of harm or actual violence... and then you open your door to discover those VERY PEOPLE now have a badge.... yes it is a terrifying prospect.

But it isn't a prospect. It's really happening.

And that's saying something because I am very pro-law enforcement.

Jaegermonster is entirely correct.:yes: It's like what happens with the prosecutor's office - I used to hear, "I'll give your guy [let's say, two years] but if he makes me pick twelve and go to trial he's lookin' at [ten]." I always wondered why making the state prove its case merited additional punishment.:winkgrin: :lol:

But Jess - if the AR groups show up at your house, I suppose you will act like the tough lady you are and tell them to pound sand. In a very polite fashion, of course, because tough ladies are still, well, ladies.:)

I think we all have the tendency, when someone shows up and absolutely shatters our lives (with an arrest, or a seizure of our animals, or whatever) to think that we can fix it right then and there and make it go away if we just knew the right thing to do. Because we like to think we still have some power to affect the situation we've just found ourselves in.

Now, no offense to any law enforcement folks present, but the nice officer is entirely aware that this is how we feel. So s/he says (some variation of), "I can help you if you'll . . . . " And we think, "Great. Now I understand how to regain some control." So we do as the nice officer says.
And it almost never, ever turns out well, trust me.:no:

It certainly did not in this case, did it? I'm sure that master thought she was doing the absolute best thing for her animals at the time - but really, it wasn't a situation conducive to rational decision-making. What happened is that ten of her hounds are now lost. And the county can say, "But she gave them to us." And so she did. Now, had she not, all the hounds might have been seized - in fact, all the hounds might now be dead. I had that very thing happen in one of my cases - dogs were seized and killed within twenty-four hours. But at least she would have some right of redress.

wendy

Aug. 13, 2009, 01:29 PM

you know, I suspect they had no grounds to actually seize the hounds and just did the middle-of-the-night commando style thing to pressure/terrify/confuse the owner into giving up ownership of some of the dogs. Some kind of politics going on behind the whole thing I feel sure. Moral of the story: never cooperate with the authorities and never surrender your animals.
Maybe we can help the poor kennel owner sue the PSPCA on some grounds some lawyer type can think up?

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 13, 2009, 01:46 PM

I think I understand that Harvard professor a little bit better. When you know (as I do), that something you are part of has been the subject of misinformation, prejudice, lies, lawsuits, and even threats of harm or actual violence... and then you open your door to discover those VERY PEOPLE now have a badge.... yes it is a terrifying prospect.

But it isn't a prospect. It's really happening.

And that's saying something because I am very pro-law enforcement.

Absolutely!:yes: I completely get both Mrs. Willard and the Harvard professor.:yes: There are some amazing parallels there if you think about it.

Although I can't say I'm exactly pro law enforcement. Don't get me wrong - I know they have a tough row to hoe sometimes. But I'm from the southern Appalachians (where we managed to be on the opposite side of both sides in the War Between the States) and was raised in the (Nineteen) Sixties, when little girls got crushes on Abbie Hoffman and Rap Brown, not the Jonas Brothers and Bobbie Brown.:winkgrin: So anytime anybody gets a little authority? I mistrust 'em.:yes:

Equibrit

Aug. 13, 2009, 01:52 PM

I'd really love to know who the Master pissed off and how, in order for all this to get started. "We got a complaint" doesn't quite cut it

fivehorses

Aug. 13, 2009, 02:01 PM

equinelaw, thank you for your very thorough explanation. I also want to convey how sorry I am about your dog, and also that you had to experience the 'bad' side of things. I try and take from negative experiences something I can learn or what it was to teach me. Maybe you are a better attorney thanks to your experience.

I guess I can say, I learned how you can be the kind of person who stays within the lines of right and wrong, yet can be 'harmed'.

As far as people saying call your lawyer, yeah right. Many lawyers don't give out their home number. Many people don't even have a lawyer. So, many 'vengence' complaints and actions are taken after hours for this very reason.

Again, equinelaw, thank you. I know when faced(intimidated) with surrender your animals or else, many do not know what the term 'surrender' means.

I know I didn't.

I also use to be the kind of person who would say, sure come on in, I have nothing to hide. Hmmm, scary stuff.

I know from experience, good people can be wronged. And you are also right, many people do not have the thousands of dollars to retain a lawyer either.

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 02:22 PM

And I was born an old fart into an extremely conservative multicultural multinational bunch of old farts who could only communicate through translators at holiday dinners. In between the old farts were soldiers- that long grey line - and they were conservative old farts too. Some of those old farts were in camps in WWII and can attest to excesses in government (and no one is allowed to invoke Godwin's Law on that - the Germans weren't the only ones who abused people in the 30's and 40's);)

I'm still very conservative and respectful of authority but I tell you plain - this is NOT the way to go about improving the lives of animals in the US.

Better off dead is the mantra of the AR nuts, not reasonable people who strive for a balance between rights and responsibilities.

And while I am a tough old fart, and didn't think twice about shooting a rabid coon on my porch, and never hesitate when assisting injured people or animals....

If a PETA person was on my step and tried to flex some muscle what would I really do? What would you do? What would Equibrit or wendy or anyone else do?

I think a few of us would throw rocks. Some of us would dissolve into tears and be in shock - unable to think clearly. Some of us might become violent. Some of us might attempt to prevent people from taking the animals out of the house.

That is the danger law enforcement has to deal with - it's part of the job and I respect that but my sympathy will tend to lie with the one weeping and cowering in fear - and it may not be a pet or livestock doing the cowering - but a human unfairly targeted or accused.

And if this old fart conservative feels that way - a person wound so tight she doesn't even jaywalk and has never had a ticket -that's saying something.

Absolutely!:yes: I completely get both Mrs. Willard and the Harvard professor.:yes: There are some amazing parallels there if you think about it.

But then, I'm of the generation who had its first crushes on Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, not the Jonas Brothers.:winkgrin: So it's not a big surprise to me that bad things can happen to good people, if they stand in the way of those in power ATM.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Aug. 13, 2009, 02:55 PM

If a PETA person was on my step and tried to flex some muscle what would I really do? What would you do? What would Equibrit or wendy or anyone else do?
...
And if this old fart conservative feels that way - a person wound so tight she doesn't even jaywalk and has never had a ticket -that's saying something.

A sleeping dragon, no?:winkgrin:

I don't suppose any of us can say what we'd do, not really, unless and until (God forbid) it happens to us. The important thing, really, to wrap one's head around is that yes, it can happen to us. Nice, middle-class, respectable ladies.

I have the benefit of listening to the 911 tapes of seizures gone bad (dogs, horses, childrens, whatever) so I know a few things I hope I wouldn't do: I wouldn't yell, or scream, or curse at the officers. Or throw rocks.:winkgrin:

If there are no trailers or people physically taking one's animals away right then, and no one with a warrant, I think the best thing to do is quietly retreat into one's dwelling and shut and lock the door.

If they are loading up your horses and hounds without your permission? I guess you gotta go out there. But I wouldn't sign anything. And I'm a lawyer. It's just not a good time to be making decisions. If they wanted to arrest me? Hell, I reckon I've spent the night in worse places.:winkgrin:

Equibrit

Aug. 13, 2009, 03:08 PM

If a PETA person was on my step and tried to flex some muscle what would I really do? What would you do? What would Equibrit or wendy or anyone else do?

Use my cell phone to dial my lawyer. I make a point of having his home/cell/office/pager/wife's number stored - just in case. (I placed an aged Arabian horse with him a few years ago)

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 03:19 PM

Lordy - we've seen the images of the screechy woman screaming at the cops while her animals were seized. Fat Palomino's saga with her local crazy lady was something to behold. Lotta crazy going on there.

It's not something you want plastered on the news.

I was saddened so see Arizona DQ's post with an attorney's advice to animal owners. Did you read that? Excellent advice, of course. But I find it disturbing that any animal owner should have to take such measures in the hopes of avoiding persecution. Not prosecution - persecution.

I would be as disturbed had that advice been given to a minority. Because basically what is being advised is....... hide.

Hide from "them" because "they" are in fact out to get you.

It's creepy enough to encounter paranoid people; it's even creepier to find out they're right. Are they right or have you become paranoid too?

I think I just burst a blood vessel.

A sleeping dragon, no?:winkgrin:

I don't suppose any of us can say what we'd do, not really, unless and until (God forbid) it happens to us. The important thing, really, to wrap one's head around is that yes, it can happen to us. Nice, middle-class, respectable ladies.

I have the benefit of listening to the 911 tapes of seizures gone bad (dogs, horses, childrens, whatever) so I know a few things I hope I wouldn't do: I wouldn't yell, or scream, or curse at the officers. Or throw rocks.:winkgrin:

If there are no trailers or people physically taking one's animals away right then, and no one with a warrant, I think the best thing to do is quietly retreat into one's dwelling and shut and lock the door.

If they are loading up your horses and hounds without your permission? I guess you gotta go out there. But I wouldn't sign anything. And I'm a lawyer. It's just not a good time to be making decisions. If they wanted to arrest me? Hell, I reckon I've spent the night in worse places.:winkgrin:

Jaegermonster

Aug. 13, 2009, 07:53 PM

And then what happened, were they all euthanized anyway because they were fighting dogs?

No they were not. We were able to adopt out all of the puppies and their mothers (except one who was in the late stages of heartworms) and a few of the younger male dogs were adoptable.
Unfortunately most of the older males had to be EU'ed within the first few days, they were extremely aggressive towards other animals (not surprising since that was what they had been bred and trained for years to do), which was very sad for all of us involved.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 13, 2009, 07:59 PM

If a PETA person was on my step and tried to flex some muscle what would I really do? What would you do? What would Equibrit or wendy or anyone else do?

In my state they are not law enforcement, have no authority and are private citizens just like anybody else. I would tell them to leave very clearly, and then I would call the police to have them arrested if they did not do so.

If I caught them in my barn or near my animals I would consider them a thief or a burglar and respond accordingly.

So the response to a PETA person on the step would depend on the particular state (for example as Guilherme posted in TN any yahoo who calls himself a "shelter president" can anoint people as law enforcement YIKES) and what their laws are as far as what authority those people may or may not have.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 13, 2009, 08:14 PM

No offense - but this statement verifies many of the concerns I have had for many years.

The fact that "it won't go as well for us" if we exercise our right to demand a warrant.

What you're saying is that yes, we really do need to live in fear that an ACO is going to abuse us - but if we're smart we'll bend over and take it.

If we attempt to exercise any right - we'll be taken down.

So - now we have "charities" filled with "volunteers" trained by HSUS and PETA, some "charities" have multi-million dollar contracts, they're given law enforcement authority - including, in some states, the ability to arrest people and seize property, and the right to conduct warrantless search and seizures. In some states, these "charities" are lobbying for a greater role in law enforcement - and yet still have little to no training in law enforcement or animal husbandry.

And what you're saying is that if anyone is faced with such a "charity" - they'll do as their told because exercising any right will result in harm.

In my state - animal rights groups are seeking the same powers as law enforcement officers - up to and including the right to conduct warrantless searches. Some of these groups have stated their intent to monitor and target hunting dog owners and clubs.

And you're telling me that if those people get a badge I'm supposed to let them into my home and take my beagle napping on the couch?

No that's not what I am saying at all, but I can see how you would think that given the things and the misconduct of these people going on in your area. they are off the chain up there with all this.
Here, we don't just go knocking on doors because we can. We really do have a complaint and 99/100 it's legitimate and usually worse than described.

And IME, people who don't have anything to hide or aren't doing anything wrong don't make things harder than they need to be.

But on the few times where it isn't a big deal or just minor issues, it's easier on everyone if they just let me in, I tell them the dog needs shelter outside and a longer chain, fix it, here's a warning I'll be back next week to see his new doghouse, bye. And most people really don't have an issue with letting me in because we don't have all that crap down here like in other areas.

But then if they slam the door and say go get a warrant, fine. Warrants are a real PITA.
I'll go downtown, get a state attorney, spend a hour of his time, go get a judge, another hour, fill out the paperwork and the folder for the tracking of the warrant, basically spend a whole day preparing it and getting it, then I'll come back. and after all that ass ache, I better come back with a ticket. I won't take the animals if they don't need to be taken, our shelter is too overcrowded to have to deal with capriciousness too, and it costs the city $$. but you'll get a ticket for sure, at least one, more if I can find other violations like no licenses, no proof of vaccines, etc.

i would rather investigate real cruelty and neglect than deal with someone who is showing out because they can. Just let me in and I'll be on my way, unless there is something you don't want me to see. Make life hard for me and I can be difficult too, that's just the way it works.

I have been able to schmooze my way in just about anywhere (even some dogfighters) just by being nice. there have only been one or two times where i have had to go get a search warrant, and one of those times there were two dogs starving to death in a front bedroom and I could plainly see them, but the asshat refused to let me in. they were 24 hours from death according to the city vet.

I think that in most states, the sheriff's associations are going to fight the PETA police thing, if only from a liability standpoint. There is so much liability now in police work, we get sued every time we get out of our cars just about, and we are trained, that they would be nuts to go along with that.. It's rife for abuse, false arrest and harrassment suits, it would be a nightmare for these jurisdictions to defend themselves against all the lawsuits.

Just for the record, I have 11 dogs and I would tell any PETA HSUS hack that showed up at my gate to do something unpleasant to himself too. I for sure wouldn't let any law enforcement in, at least not from my agency, because since I am also an employee there are some issues with me telling them to leave and insubordination and so on. But I don't live in the county in which I am employed, I would let officers in from the county where i live. But only the real law enforcement, not some animal rights nutjob.
And if things started to go south I would tell them to leave. But I sure wouldn't start screaming at them or throwing things.

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 08:42 PM

Jaegermonster -

Thank you for explaining how things are done in your state.

It's not how things are done here, or in PA. Last session there were several bills in our GA that. taken as a whole, represented an extraordinary expansion of powers. Including extending sovereign immunity to volunteer "investigators". Coupled with another bill that would have allowed an unlimited number of people to be appointed as "investigators", but required no training, and also language that prohibited any judge from denying appointment to as many investigators were nominated by "shelters".

As you know, PETA HQ is a "shelter" under Virginia law, they are located in Norfolk.

There were other bills that would have permitted the use of blue flashing lights in the personal vehicles of "investigators", and some other bills here and there in different committees that changed oversight of certain programs.

Had those bills passed, every single PETA employee could have been appointed an "investigator", sovereign immunity would have attached to their "investigations", they could go around flashing the blue lights, and no judge could have denied their appointment. Also, in our state a very nominal training course is required to be an "investigator".

When I wrote that what I should do if a PETA person knocked at my door - and had a badge - had those bills passed that would have been a reality.

Had those bills passed, any "investigator" could have come onto private property where people are lawfully hunting and "investigate" them (Open Fields Doctrine) Basically an end run around hunter harassment statutes.

That is the level of sophistication and intent behind a lot of what people are upset about with this incident. Not wendy specifically - but the abuses of due process, the intimidation, ethical concerns about nonprofits acting as law enforcement, endless legal concerns, etc.

When I wrote that I understand that professor a little better - I don't mean to minimize the oppression suffered by minorities. Only that there are similarities.

But any pet owner, any owner of livestock or working dogs - could be Wendy. At least in PA, VA and other states. Especially with the enormous expansion of powers being granted animal rights groups in law enforcement. Those bills were defeated last session - but similar versions are submitted every year. Which is a shame because what is really needed is good training - not groups of volunteer vigilantes.

I'm glad you do not need to worry about that where you live - but where I live it is a real and present danger. Not because I'm doing anything wrong - but because there are groups here who are VERY eager to be granted the power to come into my home and take my animals. In fact, they're counting on that power because that is an actual goal - to target hunting.

If they obtain that power - every animal owner in this state is affected. Not just hunter or owners of hunting dogs.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 13, 2009, 08:54 PM

It is a very scary time in many states with all that is going on, for sure.
I just can't believe the way these zealots are being permitted to run amok.

Rather than the usual obvious people to call (MFHA, and so on, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere) I wonder if anyone has thought to call the ACLU about some of this?

Unreasonable search and seizure is unreasonable, whether it's a 16 yo black male in the ghetto at 3 am or a nice older lady with a bunch of basset hounds. They might be able to help. Not just her, but all of us who hunt with hounds or have kennels.

Bluey

Aug. 13, 2009, 08:57 PM

This fellow just was appointed to some higher administration post, you may have missed that?:eek:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=104820

We are really fighting a losing battle any more, especially with so many not seeing the big picture and going along with things like the closing of slaughter bills and such.

We are letting them chip at all we do with animals at our peril to lose our rights to have them at all.
That is now not paranoia any more, but happens to be more and more obvious.:(

Ajierene

Aug. 13, 2009, 09:37 PM

Rather than the usual obvious people to call (MFHA, and so on, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere) I wonder if anyone has thought to call the ACLU about some of this?

Unreasonable search and seizure is unreasonable, whether it's a 16 yo black male in the ghetto at 3 am or a nice older lady with a bunch of basset hounds. They might be able to help. Not just her, but all of us who hunt with hounds or have kennels.

The only problem I see with this is the belligerent/rock throwing incident. It makes it a lot harder to make a case.

The fact that she refused entry initially is going to give someone pause. The fact that she was belligerent is not good for her or the cause in general.

While this may be an abuse of power, it is hard to say...yeah, these people were so wrong to go back with a warrant.....after rocks were thrown at them....

I'm not saying it is unwinnable or an ACLU member would not be willing to take the case, but it is not that cut and dry of an abuse case. Definitely not a case I would bring up as proof of abuse of power of PA SPCA.

fivehorses

Aug. 13, 2009, 09:38 PM

Jaeger, you sound like a reasonable and ethical law enforcement agent who has their head screwed on correctly, and filled with common sense.
The issue for me, is not everyone is like that.

I have experienced, both animal and non animal related the 'politics' of cops, selectman, lawyers and even judges. I hate to say it, but I am going through one right now, and tomorrow have to call a lawyer and retain one to preserve and protect my rights. It stinks.

I find this thread very enlightening. Not that I am happy others have been abused and mistreated, but I don't feel so alone.

JanM

Aug. 13, 2009, 09:48 PM

Interesting Philadelphia news tonight. Michael Vick just signed with the Philadelphia Eagles, wonder if the PSPCA will try to get him to do commercials for them and promote their agenda? After all, he supposedly talked to a boys/girls club about the right way to treat animals last week in Atlanta.

Power mad people like the PSPCA scare me to death. I agree with the posters that have pointed out the great strides the Animal Rights psychos have made into the infrastructure in many places-when you look at the total picture it's very troubling.

equinelaw

Aug. 13, 2009, 09:49 PM

JSwan

Aug. 13, 2009, 10:04 PM

I have experienced, both animal and non animal related the 'politics' of cops, selectman, lawyers and even judges. I hate to say it, but I am going through one right now, and tomorrow have to call a lawyer and retain one to preserve and protect my rights. It stinks.

That is terrible and I hope everything works out.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 13, 2009, 10:11 PM

Aijerene, I totally agree with you and your points.
Unfortunately I can totally see this from the side of the police, who may not have been in on all the animal rights nut job agenda stuff and maybe got dragged into this, and also from the side of someone who has 11 of her own dogs (5 are hogging up two thirds of my bed as I type this, the other 6 would be in here too if only there were room) and also foxhunts (actually I am a whip with two hunts, so I spend lots of time in the kennels and with the hounds). This whole thing just sucks all the way around.

And fivehorses, thank you also. I have worked cases where dog skeletons were found still on leashes in the backyards, and I wanted to kill someone because they were just so blase about it. The things people do to animals never ceases to amaze me just when I think I have seen it all. I try hard to be fair and reasonable and do what is right for the animals.

I would really like to see any photos that were taken of the kennels and the hounds. I was on a case once where the lady was a AKC judge and a breeder and well respected etc.
The dogs looked great anytime they were seen in public and any photos of her kennels seen in publications were gorgeous. we got a complaint and you would not believe the condition of those kennels. It was way more than just overnight, and we actually went the first time at 10 am. It was absolutely appalling. We were all just shocked.

Feces hock deep on big Labs, no water or filthy water, dogs in little tiny crates, just squalor. Dogs with skin infections, it was just horrible. We warned her (gave her several), came back a week later and it was worse than the first time, and she had not had a vet out or had any of the dogs treated at all. She was basically a hoarder disguised as a respectable breeder, she just rarely allowed anyone onto her property.

The point I am making is sometimes there is a public face and a private face to these things, and I don't think there is anyone on this thread that has actually been to or seen the conditions of the Murder Hollow Kennels. So we really don't know one way or the other.

vacation1

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:06 AM

Interesting Philadelphia news tonight. Michael Vick just signed with the Philadelphia Eagles

Sigh. I do so love Philadelphia, and it does so love to mock my love. Perhaps Andy Reid felt that Vick would help teach his two thug sons a more productive form of criminality.

Even in the abstract, if there is a complaint made then animal control/law enforcement has a duty to investigate it. If the subject is uncooperative then there is no choice but to proceed to plan b.

I don't quite buy that. Law enforcement has a considerable amount of ability to shut down and basically do nothing, if they think they can get away with it. At least, that's been my experience when trying to prod cops to proceed to plan B after plan A has failed. This basset thing must have had someone really pushing to get all that effort to round up dwarf dogs in a city not currently at its financial or criminal best.

That is the danger law enforcement has to deal with - it's part of the job and I respect that but my sympathy will tend to lie with the one weeping and cowering in fear - and it may not be a pet or livestock doing the cowering - but a human unfairly targeted or accused. And if this old fart conservative feels that way - a person wound so tight she doesn't even jaywalk and has never had a ticket -that's saying something.

Oh, come on, now. You old conservative farts are the first people to start heading to the barricades over personal freedom, respect for authority/law enforcement/tradition/etc. be damned:lol:

trafalgar

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:07 AM

wateryglen

Aug. 14, 2009, 06:18 AM

Thank you all for the wonderful and informative points you've brought up. I am in awe of the passion and pray this situation gets resolved. How tragic for those poor hounds. Many hunt kennels have had to move further out of civilization in order to keep safe. But with development always encroaching & coming; it feels so futile sometimes. I'm depressed. And sometimes I think we hunters take too low a profile.

FYI, Micheal Vick is being interviewed Sunday night on 60 Minutes....THIS I gotta see.

lcw579

Aug. 14, 2009, 10:13 AM

Sigh, I am sad for my city... Seizing working Bassets, hiring Michael Vick... oh the irony. :no::(

Vacation1 - I thought the same thing when Andy was speaking at the press conference about "second chances" - he's thinking about those sons of his and hoping that the public will give them a second chance. Besides Vick takes some of the pressure off them.

Anne FS

Aug. 14, 2009, 11:18 AM

Interesting Philadelphia news tonight. Michael Vick just signed with the Philadelphia Eagles, wonder if the PSPCA will try to get him to do commercials for them

Don't think so. PSPCA has already released a statement voicing their disapproval of this.

However, IMHO the real reason he won't be doing commercials for PSPCA is because HSUS is firmly entrenched in this situation, and HSUS wants all the moola flowing to them. Vick is their new cash cow.

However, as pointed out on FOL, this Fall in Philadelphia is a golden opportunity to get out the word that while we don't support Vick's actions, REAL animal lovers don't support HSUS, Peter Singer, PETA, or other AR groups. This is not a you're either for HSUS or for dog fighting issue, and the ARs will make it seem that way. We must not let them. We need people who can talk in Good Sound Bites while the cameras are on in Philly. Golden opportunity to educate about AR groups. I hope it's not wasted.

Anne FS

Aug. 14, 2009, 11:29 AM

JSwan is right that AR volunteers are seeking the powers of law enforcement. This is VERY frightening.

PETA? I agree. They show up they're no body anyone has to listen to anywhere. BUT HSUS and PETA want to be the ones training the volunteers in local humane societies and wants those groups to have law enforcement powers. Bad, bad news.

JSwan

Aug. 14, 2009, 11:36 AM

They already do. And many shelters are heavily involved with PETA and HSUS, and send their employees and volunteers to the annual Animal Rights conference.

They're also heavily involved in "humane education" efforts - and that is how people like this guy http://www.adaptt.org/ " educate" kids as young as 6 years old. Of course - he is a charity so it must be ok! People like him travel around the country and they are in YOUR kids schools and there is NOTHING you can do about it. They've been at this for YEARS - and are in many school systems. And these groups lobby for laws for mandatory "humane education" and of course provide the "education" free or at low cost.

Yup - I am not exaggerating and I am not paranoid. This is not about teaching kids to take care of their pets.

This guy even says that taming and riding horses is cruel. That's right - he's in your schools and teaching your kids that even taming a horse is cruel.

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly.
Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice vivisection." Gary Yourofsky, PeTA Humane Education Lecturer, quoted in the University of Southern Indiana Student Newspaper, The Shield, January 24, 2008

JSwan

Aug. 14, 2009, 11:44 AM

Here you go, for your reading enjoyment. He says the bit is the same thing that was put into the mouths of black slaves.

This person is an "educator".

Taming, Riding Horses is an Act of Animal Cruelty
By Gary Yourofsky

The following editorial appeared in The Oakland Press (Mich.) on May 15, 2008.

QUESTION: Why is the horse the only mammal who cannot have a broken leg repaired?

ANSWER: The horse is the only mammal that can be insured for millions of dollars!

As more than 150,000 thrill-seekers gathered at Churchill Downs in Louisville last Saturday to bet on which animal could run a circle the fastest, more than 14 million TV viewers witnessed the inherent cruelty when horses are forced to race. Eight Belles broke both of her front ankles shortly after she crossed the finish line in second place.

Ankle injuries are all too common in this animal-enslaving enterprise that breeds 1,000-pound stallions for huge, strong upper bodies but ignores their human-sized ankles that carry the body's weight. This genetic-altering and selective genetic-breeding process is akin to the meat industry's breeding of pigs who have huge, extra-fleshy upper bodies but weak arthritic legs.

The techniques used to dominate horses are vile. In fact, the word "breaking" as in "breaking a horse" doesn't involve whispers, contrary to what many people want to believe. It is physically and psychologically abusive. Getting horses to allow saddles on their backs is the first step of domination. Animals are locked into a small area where they cannot escape. Horses quickly realize they must acquiesce to the demands of their human captors or face the consequences—which can include food or water deprivation and even killing (euthanasia) if the horse is deemed unmanageable. When the saddle is finally attached, the horse desperately tries to shake it off because the cinch is painfully tight around the hypersensitive waist area.

Animal abuser Trent Normandin even states the following on his website: "The horse goes to great lengths to get the strange object off his back. Trent allows the horse to try to shake off the saddle and learn that he cannot."

Then it's time for the bit to be forced into the horse's mouth so their every movement can be controlled. This cruel and vile device—which used to be shoved into the mouths of black slaves in America when they were auctioned off to white businessmen—forces the horse into full submission. The bit is intentionally placed behind the front cutting teeth and behind the back grinding teeth. When the rein is yanked, the steel implement painfully grinds against the teeth, the roof of the mouth and the cheek area so the horse will submit to the demands of the rider and turn left or right, or stop. The mouth is one of the most sensitive parts of anyone's body, therefore making it not only evil to control someone in this way, but purely fallacious for those in the racing and equestrian industries to call themselves horse-lovers! Intentionally inflicting pain and discomfort on someone else is hateful, not loving.

After the bit is in place, the mounting of the animal which—for the record—does not want to be mounted, is next. Normandin again acknowledges the inherent cruelty of riding a horse: "At this point, the average horse furiously rebels and may buck and rear." It should be abundantly clear that the breaking process does not benefit the horse in any way. It is only a benefit to those who wish to reap profit from the horse's body.

Many racing fans also claim that horses naturally love to run. This is misleading in two ways. First, loving to run and being forced to run are two different things. Every being under the sun, except maybe the sloth, loves to run. So this is a ridiculous rationalization. Animals and people, however, want to run on their own terms, when they feel like exercising, playing, or escaping from a tenuous situation. Secondly, as the nation's only traveling animal rights lecturer (more than 1,600 lectures in 27 states), I have seen thousands of horses in fields along Americas highways and visited many sanctuaries over the years. I have still only seen horses run once! It happened at the SASHA Farm Animal Sanctuary in Manchester, Mich., when a handful of their rescued horses were introduced to a new field in 2003. Their dashing excitement quickly faded after a few minutes, and they went back to their true love: grazing! Not running! Horses, when given the chance, graze as much as cows.

Meanwhile, I have yet to mention the whip. When this weapon is used or threatened to be used, I am not sure how any rational individual can claim that this obscene industry is humane, benign or necessary in the 21st century. Civilized societies are supposed to show compassion and act kindly and mercifully toward one another and the creatures that live amongst them.

Anne FS

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:14 PM

I don't think there is anyone on this thread that has actually been to or seen the conditions of the Murder Hollow Kennels. So we really don't know one way or the other.

Except that you can find relatively recent photos of them hunting. You don't keep hounds in squalor and poorly cared for and have them look like those hounds when they're out hunting. One bath to wash off the feces isn't gonna cut it. Hounds won't look that good out in the field if they are abused at home.

lcw579

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:32 PM

Wow, JSwan, I never realized that all the babies I have "broken" were not "average" :winkgrin: Not a one ever objected to the saddle, the girth, the bit nor did they ever go to "great lengths" to try to remove any of these strange objects. In fact, I can't recall one that was upset when I got on for the first time. Hmmmm, wonder what I was doing wrong?

And Gary never saw horses run for the joy of it? Poor man - wonder what he would have thought of my bad pony that used to lead the whole field full of horses out over the coop, up the driveway down the road a piece and then back down the drive and back over the coop and into the field when he was bored? Bored because he wasn't ridden enough that week!

UGH! These people are so nutty it is easy to laugh at them - but at the same time they are so dangerous. :eek:

JSwan

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:42 PM

Yeah, I know. But the truth doesn't matter. Not to these people. That SPCA has a stated goal of targeting kennels. Notice how that zoning violation isn't mentioned anymore? The zoning issue was a smokescreen. They found out there was a kennel and they want all kennels banned so they found a way to destroy her.

Other folks got it right - there is a convicted animal abuser cozy with the HSUS, and living in the same city that stole a bunch of fat dogs from a retired teacher and probably killed at least a few of them.

If that is not completely insane, I don't know what is. All I know is that these people spread a tremendous amount of misinformation, lies, and foment hatred and prejudice, and they're being paid to do it. By donors and the government. They teach our kids and run animal control.

If it is any other group the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center would be on it like white on rice. But nope -not interested.

Matter of fact, I got a pretty rude email from the SPLC this am - about an error in their study about militias - they were using the same terminology to describe extremist groups and state militias and I thought they needed to distinguish the two.

Well - evidently the only type of tolerance and injustice they're interested in is what THEY decide is intolerant or unjust. Otherwise - piss off.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:45 PM

lcw579

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:52 PM

I did email about the bassets, and, no surprise, I didn't get a response.

I was afraid that once they got started on the puppy mills the kennels would be next. You would think that the people out at Radnor and Pickering at least would be getting a bit more vocal. Once this type of seizure succeeds it is going to spread and I know they were worried when the puppy mill laws were being discussed. I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

Bill Smith was right there in the paper spouting off about the hiring of Michael Vick:

"Michael Vick is coming to a city with some of the strongest and most outspoken animal advocates," said Bill Smith, founder of Main Line Animal Rescue in Chester Springs. "In a city where thousands of pit bulls are destroyed every year because we don't have the resources to rehabilitate them, it's shameful that we are willing to rehabilitate Michael Vick."

There are bassets on his website so if anyone would recognize any of the seized hounds they should check it out.

lcw579

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:54 PM

Perhaps yours didn't know that if they didn't submit they would be euthanized? What horse knows that euthanasia is hanging over its head if it doesn't behave?

Sheesh. This makes me ill.

That's what I forgot to do! Whisper "Behave or die, behave or die" in their ears! :lol::lol:

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 12:59 PM

Except that you can find relatively recent photos of them hunting. You don't keep hounds in squalor and poorly cared for and have them look like those hounds when they're out hunting. One bath to wash off the feces isn't gonna cut it. Hounds won't look that good out in the field if they are abused at home.

i never said she abused them. Abuse and neglect are often two very different things.
And apparently you missed my earlier post about the AKC judge/breeder that we had to investigate. it was absolutely shocking what we found when we went to her kennels, as opposed to the "public face" and the photographs from shows etc.

So I would still like to see the kennel photos for myself.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 01:07 PM

The term Animal Rights means different things to different people. Of course animals have rights but it appears that those poor Bassetts had a right to their home and that was taken away. I am assuming from what I have read, and I admit I have not read the entire thread, that these dogs in question were well cared for and happy. This story sounds totally ludicrous and some jobs should be lost if the injustice done to this poor lady and her dogs is as straightforward as it appears. Common sense and honesty .......... it's so obviously the answer and so simple yet idiot people just have a way of ignoring the obvious

Many people use the terms animal rights and animal welfare interchangably.
I am for and supportive of Animal Welfare, I think animals deserve to be treated humanely and compassionately, they deserve food water, shelter and veterinary care.

I do not support the Animal Rights movement. It largely seems to consist of the whackadoo types who go around letting animals out of labs and think all horses should be free, no one should have pets and we should not be eating them, wearing them etc.
Plain and simple I don't believe that animals have "rights". They are here for us, without getting into the whole biblical thing, but with that comes the responsibilty to care for them and treat them appropriately. period.

libgrrl

Aug. 14, 2009, 01:10 PM

Not saying this is in any way applicable, but Ernie Paragallo's racehorses (the ones that were actually at the track) looked ok too. One picture doesn't mean anything.

Anne FS

Aug. 14, 2009, 01:13 PM

i never said she abused them. Abuse and neglect are often two very different things.
And apparently you missed my earlier post about the AKC judge/breeder that we had to investigate. it was absolutely shocking what we found when we went to her kennels, as opposed to the "public face" and the photographs from shows etc.

So I would still like to see the kennel photos for myself.

Agree that abuse and neglect are two different things. So PSPCA only accused her of neglect then? So I should've written "neglect" instead of abuse.

I believe you about the AKC judge/breeder and agree that I'd like to see proof of these accusations as well. However, none of these things negates the reprehensible police-state tactics of the PSPCA. Those tactics simply must not be tolerated. Whatever happened to we'll give you a chance to rectify the situation?

I have an interesting story to add to this, but must run to a meeting now.

Arizona DQ

Aug. 14, 2009, 01:52 PM

I don't quite buy that. Law enforcement has a considerable amount of ability to shut down and basically do nothing, if they think they can get away with it. At least, that's been my experience when trying to prod cops to proceed to plan B after plan A has failed. This basset thing must have had someone really pushing to get all that effort to round up dwarf dogs in a city not currently at its financial or criminal best.
:

One thing to also consider is how adoptable are the bassets versus some big old ugly dog? Granted many dog hoarders tend to the smaller breeds, but the ARs also like to target the smaller breeds because they are a lot more adoptable and in demand by the general public.

I also wonder if they (ARs) like to target the older single women as they MAY be easier to intimidate into surrendering the dogs? - Just a thought, I have no basis to prove this point...

Many of us are paranoid! I have 11 dogs and live on 4.5 acres. I only use a few kennels during the day while I am at work. Once I am home all the dogs are in the house with me. But sometimes I fear I could come home from work and have all my dogs gone..... So far, the local ACOs are great to work with, but it is still scarey.....:no:

Anne FS

Aug. 14, 2009, 02:11 PM

Arizona DQ

Aug. 14, 2009, 02:38 PM

That's what I forgot to do! Whisper "Behave or die, behave or die" in their ears! :lol::lol:

LOL. I used to just say "Alpo" and that always did the job.....:eek:

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 03:35 PM

I know a city cop who is interested in reptiles and has a few of her own. So she usually gets called if there's anything concerning herps. She got a call one day that someone was keeping an alligator in the city. So the cops went and took it and gave it to a reptile store owner to find a home for it (he's a good guy and knows his stuff). So I say, oh, can't you have alligators in the city? and she says no, it's fine to have them. The cage was a little small, though.

I asked if they'd given the owner the option to correct that and be checked up on again, and she said no, they didn't, "we usually just take the animal." The kicker is that the store gave the officer a bearded dragon for free when she dropped off the gator.

OMG She did what???? That is so not cool.
Here you have to have a permit to have a gator, but we would call Fish and Wildlife to deal with it since that's their thing. They usually will take it if they don't have a permit and either arrest or cite the person.

But then we cant just give critters to whomever we want. They have to go to ACC and then either get adopted out or auctioned or whatever. Exotics the Game wardens come get and deal with.

But to get an animal for free in exchange for a seized one is totally not cool. It's called a kickback.
Does her dept know about this??
Our sheriff here would stroke out if I did something like that.
We had an officer that picked up two dogs that were strays in her neighborhood, took them to the vet, spent quite a decent amount of $$ on them, then some guy showed up and said they were his. She asked for proof and wouldn't give up the dogs without it. He complained to the dept and she was fired for theft.
Dear sweet god I can't believe she did that.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 03:37 PM

Agree that abuse and neglect are two different things. So PSPCA only accused her of neglect then? So I should've written "neglect" instead of abuse.

I believe you about the AKC judge/breeder and agree that I'd like to see proof of these accusations as well. However, none of these things negates the reprehensible police-state tactics of the PSPCA. Those tactics simply must not be tolerated. Whatever happened to we'll give you a chance to rectify the situation?

I have an interesting story to add to this, but must run to a meeting now.

It is my understanding that she has not actually been accused of abuse, only neglect as far as hygiene issues in the kennels etc. But I could be mistaken or misunderstood part of what I have read and/or been told. And there was also the issue with the number of animals and no kennel license etc. But I don't think anyone has said she abused any of them.

The PSPCA and Wendy herself both said that they did visit her home several times in attempts to contact her. They left cards on her door, which she admitted she ignored. So they finally got a warrant and came in. Perhaps if she had called them back, things might have ended differently, but now we will never know.

Bluey

Aug. 14, 2009, 03:43 PM

Here is more about the latest animal rights groups on the move:

http://www.agweb.com/TopProducer/Article.aspx?id=152654

Don't kid yourselves that dogs and horses are not in their sights already also.

You can ask anyone trying to do any dog activities, how many local dog rules the animal groups fight for in each county, region and state.

Horses are not that important right now, since they gave the industry a big, disruptive blow by closing slaughter plants and that divisive controversy.

Ignore them to your own peril, if you want to keep having your horses and other animals around you.

JSwan

Aug. 14, 2009, 04:22 PM

Our sheriff here would stroke out if I did something like that.
We had an officer that picked up two dogs that were strays in her neighborhood, took them to the vet, spent quite a decent amount of $$ on them, then some guy showed up and said they were his. She asked for proof and wouldn't give up the dogs without it. He complained to the dept and she was fired for theft.
Dear sweet god I can't believe she did that.

Jaeger - you want to hear something really weird? There is a group that targets dog owners and harasses them until they give up their dog. If they don't give up the dog, they steal it.

The leader of the group is a convicted dog thief, and I think she's under suspicion for a recent disappearance - don't know if charges have been filed yet.

Anyway - she got some big award from the ASPCA. The seem like they're really good folks -very moderate - until you dig deeper.

Bluey - HSUS always focuses on states that utilize the ballot initiative. I thought I'd lost all respect for that group after Katrina - but their new BFF Michael Vick just makes me sick. That man better never step foot in my state again. Good riddance.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 04:27 PM

Wow. I am just incredulous that this kind of garbage is allowed to continue.
I don't understand how things have gotten so out of control in certain areas.

JSwan, you might remember my posting previously about a dog I found with its leg broken and rotted off down to nothing but bone. I fostered the dog for months after she was able to leave the hospital, since she was technically still evidence, and was actually awarded the dog in court at the final disposition of the case (and yes the dog was there in court that day).

Well, I went to animal control anyway and paid the adoption fee for the dog, just as any other citizen would have had to do had the dog been released, because I didn't want anyone to say I arrested this lady and stole her dog. Of course, this particular case was so egregious there really wasn't much chance of THAT, but I still did not want to leave anything open to any accusations of impropriety.

And now to see these stories of the other way far other end of the spectrum is just amazing to me. Wow.

JSwan

Aug. 14, 2009, 04:38 PM

If people acted as ethically as you do I doubt I'd be so frothy.

I'm torn because the ACO's in my area do a bang up job and I don't want to paint them with the same brush as those who abuse their office. I'm interested only in issues, concepts and abuses and don't intend to malign any decent person.

Others point this out and they say it better than I do... and it bears repeating.

We no longer seem to be a reasonable people, and we're becoming increasingly polarized. I don't think that is a good thing for anyone, animals included.

cowgirljenn

Aug. 14, 2009, 05:24 PM

Well, I went to animal control anyway and paid the adoption fee for the dog, just as any other citizen would have had to do had the dog been released, because I didn't want anyone to say I arrested this lady and stole her dog. Of course, this particular case was so egregious there really wasn't much chance of THAT, but I still did not want to leave anything open to any accusations of impropriety.

We've talked about not allowing the people who work on a particular neglect case (investigation or seizure) to adopt. We don't want anyone to think we took a horse just to let a volunteer adopt it. That's a sticky proposition, though. Because you hate to tell a good person who fell in love with a particular horse after the seizure that he/she can't adopt because he/she was kind enough to volunteer.

All people are treated equally on adoption - board members, volunteer or member of the public. I really work to make sure our policies are applied evenly across the board.

fivehorses

Aug. 14, 2009, 05:31 PM

Jswan wrote...."We no longer seem to be a reasonable people, and we're becoming increasingly polarized. I don't think that is a good thing for anyone, animals included. "(sorry, don't know how to do that blue captioned quote thing).

I totally agree with that statement. It seems we can't have educated, discussions that focus on a win/win. Instead, it seems like lobbyists and off the wall issues come up. it becomes you versus me positions, rather than, lets look at this to see how we can both get our needs met.

I tend to not believe highly reactive stuff...just think its propoganda at its worse to try and scare tactic people. I want a civil, bring your points forth kind of argument/discussion.

I see this happening with the health care bill. I just want the facts, let me decide my opinion. If I hear(on any subject) without citations of source any outlandish comments, then I put you and the subject in the category of 'nuts'.

I am glad you posted the article on the PETA educatorJSwan. I am going to inquire about that.

I am a horse owner, due to many reasons, do not 'use' my horses as much as many of you. They are well cared for, but probably do not get as much 'schooling' as I would like. I associate schooling with giving them my attention.
So, I can sorta see the 'don't use the animals point. However, I am all for schooling, showing, etc, when the animals interest and well being is taken into consideration. I tend to shy away when I see its all about the person, and be damned the animal. Soooo, I thought that was PETA"s perspective too.
I don't like this guy's approach, since yes, bits, saddles, whips are all useful tools and aids. Abuse of them is wrong but their use is not.

I just wish people in general were more sensible, rather than screaming lunatics, who I sometimes wonder if they even know the issues.

Also, Jaeger, I seriously think your department is well run and high standards. I think there are a lot of crooked departments everywhere. I hope you share this thread with your department...to reinforce the reason they are in the job...to protect, not abuse or take advantage of the law.

I have also been a BOD for humane organizations, and I cannot tell you how often the aco is encouraged to have the people surrender the animals.
Sometimes these people did get them back. I also know if an alleged abuser/neglecter gave the investigator a hard time, they paid so to speak. This thread has really smartened me up.

So, smile, be nice, and do stand up for your rights. sometimes you will be met with reasonable people, other times you will not. BUT, the big thing to remember is the police officer or enforcement officer is not always looking out for your best interests, but his/her best interests to make his/her job easy, which imo is wrong. Both sides of a situation should be explained with the consequences also clearly spelled out. How often does that happen I wonder.

Any Philly people who can go visit Wendy and give us a report?

halla

Aug. 14, 2009, 06:42 PM

One thing that has seemed a bit odd about this story to me is the involvement of the police. When the Fletcher St stables were raided by Animal control, as far as I know no police showed up, only the ACOs. At that time, the PSPCA was did not have the animal control contract, but they did initiate the issue. I'm not at all clear on how that worked specifically. That was a much larger raid than this, L&I was involved in the razing of the lot, and it was in a more volatile part of the city I'll say. So while I am no friend of the PSPCA, I do think it is interesting that they brought two police officers, unless that's poor reporting. Admittedly, we have had 4 (!) cops killed since then, so it's entirely possible the law enforcement here is just more cautious than before.

I would also like to point out, although I probably shouldn't, that this kind of selective harassment is not at all limited to animal control in the city. License & Inspections is notorious for being used as a tool or the politically connected and is the clearest example. Things do seem to have improved with the new mayor, but it's so ingrained in the way the city operates that it will take much longer to solve, if ever.

The flip side isn't all bad, though. If your neighbors don't mind whatever you are doing, and you don't inadvertently piss off someone connected, you are pretty much left alone. I once lived on a street with about 6 houses that was exactly wide enough to fit a car down. Parking in that area was nearly impossible, but we discovered that you could just put your car in the street (which it then completely blocked), and the neighbors would just come knock on your door if they needed to get by. No parking tickets! Then some non-neighbors started doing it, so we had the cops ticket for a little while.

Fairview Horse Center

Aug. 14, 2009, 06:48 PM

Jswan wrote...."We no longer seem to be a reasonable people, and we're becoming increasingly polarized. I don't think that is a good thing for anyone, animals included.

This is very true, and terrifying.

BUT, the big thing to remember is the police officer or enforcement officer is not always looking out for your best interests, but his/her best interests to make his/her job easy, which imo is wrong. Both sides of a situation should be explained with the consequences also clearly spelled out. How often does that happen I wonder.

The sides of an issue are what is really scary and frustrating. Just like in a court, both sides are playing a game to "WIN", not to do what is right.

Everyone is looking for the edge of where they need to walk, and trying to find some way of doing what they want, while being just barely within the law.

I am sure our forefathers are not sleeping well with what we have done to their intent.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 14, 2009, 07:21 PM

We've talked about not allowing the people who work on a particular neglect case (investigation or seizure) to adopt. We don't want anyone to think we took a horse just to let a volunteer adopt it. That's a sticky proposition, though. Because you hate to tell a good person who fell in love with a particular horse after the seizure that he/she can't adopt because he/she was kind enough to volunteer.

All people are treated equally on adoption - board members, volunteer or member of the public. I really work to make sure our policies are applied evenly across the board.

It can get really tricky. In my situation the dog was in the hospital for almost 3 months because on top of the leg amputation and all that, then she came down with tetanus.
I fostered her for months because she was well enough to leave the clinic, but not quite well enough to be adopted, and we had to keep her where we could get her because she was still evidence. So she was with me. Then it was another 3 months til court, and everyone agreed she should stay with me since the poor dog had been through enough, but I didn't want any trouble from the department, even though the judge gave her to me.
She never went into the adoptions kennels so it wasn't like there was a line of people that wanted her or anything,she went straight out of tetanus treatment right to my farm. And never left it.
But then she is hardly some fancy schamncy dog. She is a pitbull boxer mixed cross eyed three legged ghetto dog. For sure if I were going to steal a dog it wouldn't be her LOL
But I do love her dearly.

My department doesn't play around with any foolishness, they will take you right out at the knees.
I am just flabbergasted at some of the stuff you all have been posting about these other agencies.

Anne FS

Aug. 15, 2009, 09:19 AM

Wow. I am just incredulous that this kind of garbage is allowed to continue.
I don't understand how things have gotten so out of control in certain areas.

Because the stories seem so ridiculous people think you're exaggerating. And because AR, which = anti-pet, has made so many inroads. Oh, yeah, and because people are stupid.

In the story below (link: http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Bakersfield-woman-hounded-over-pet-pooch/iLMJ6p-_HkadnXbfclgZ8A.cspx) the "sheepish" AC people are sheepish because they got caught. Otherwise they are perfectly happy poking and prying and spying on you, me, the people on this list - anyone and everyone, looking in your windows, doors, and yards, MAKING NO EFFORT TO FIND TRUTH.

<<A Bakersfield woman says she has been hounded by county animal control officers to license her dog. Funny thing is, the pooch officials were so concerned about is a stuffed animal.

Dottie Elkin lives by herself in a quaint home in south Bakersfield. For the past few months the 83-year old says she's hated getting the mail, due to letters she's receiving from the Kern County Animal Control Department.

"I told them I do not have a dog, it's a stuffed dog," Elkin said.

That's right, Elkin has a stuff "guard dog" named Wolf, keeping watch at her front door. For the last six months she's been getting letters from animal control asking her to license the dog or face a $200 fine.

"I laughed, and told all the neighbors around here it's stupidity," Elkin said.

Kern County Animal Control Director, Guy Shaw admits a mistake was made. Shaw says officers with the department's Public Education and Enforcement Team were looking for unlicensed dogs when they saw "Wolf" in the doorway of Elkin's home and noticed the dog didn't have any tags.

"We sent her letters, it was all a mistake," said the very sheepish county official. Shaw says Elkin won't have to pay any fines.>>

Bluey

Aug. 15, 2009, 09:41 AM

Well, the plot thickens.
Seems that the HSUS is not only going to keep providing instruction to shelter personel, but also participate in educating our future veterinarians in colleges.:eek:

Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse:

http://www.bovinevetonline.com/newsCNL1.asp?contentid=338813

Looks like we may be in for a loooong battle, if we want to keep our horses, dogs, etc. around.:(

Jaegermonster

Aug. 15, 2009, 02:12 PM

For some reason PSPCA seems to be getting a lot of press lately.
They were just on Animal Planet, there was a show about the puppy mills in Philly and now there is another one hour Animal Cops Philly thing on.
It's very interesting.

RedMare01

Aug. 15, 2009, 03:29 PM

sunridge1

Aug. 19, 2009, 06:43 PM

Those of you in the know, What would have happened if she refused to surrender the dogs?

Jaegermonster

Aug. 19, 2009, 07:54 PM

We've already discussed that in the many pages of this thread, but long and short is they probably would have been seized anyway but then that requires the seizing entity to have a hearing and be awarded the animals before they can be placed, fostered, etc. As opposed to surrendering them, which immediately gives ownership to the seizing entity to place the animals as they see fit with no notice to the former owner.
Wendy may have been arrested, maybe not, but there would be more time to rally the troops and get the dogs back, which now will most likely not happen.

sunridge1

Aug. 19, 2009, 09:22 PM

Sorry I didn't want to wade through it all. Belligerent that I am and despising authority as I do, it's the way I probably would go. Poor Wendy. Intimidating an older woman for publicity. Nice. Glad I have never watched that program.

fivehorses

Aug. 19, 2009, 10:11 PM

this is a very educational thread and well worth the time to read through it.
In fact, I think it should be required reading for any hs student as well as any animal owner.
I Know I learned an awful lot, and hopefully will never have to recall any of it.

wateryglen

Aug. 21, 2009, 08:14 AM

I'm a member of a basset hunt and we've received email concerning the forming of a defense fund that we can contribute to to help Wendy Willard with her legal fees. Anyone interested?

LexInVA

Aug. 21, 2009, 08:29 AM

I'd wait and see how this unfolds a bit more before I start throwing money around. Especially when there are a lot of questionable factors at play and questionable people looking to get involved.

Jaegermonster

Aug. 21, 2009, 08:55 AM

As much as I know we would all like to help, I have to say that I am with Lex on this one, at least until more information comes to light.

LexInVA

Oct. 28, 2009, 12:08 PM

Anyone have any new news on this? It's been several months so there has to be something going on.

vacation1

Nov. 28, 2009, 10:00 PM

update from Nov 25, 2009
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/

Philadelphia Bassett hound breeder Wendy Willard, charged with 22 counts of animal cruelty, is scheduled for trial Jan. 12. Willard, owner of Murder Hollow Bassetts, was raided by Pennsylvania SPCA agents and state dog wardens after complaints about noise. She was citations for lack of veterinary care and 11 citations for unsanitary condition. In addition, Willard was in violation of city ordinance limiting the number of dogs on a property to 12. Interestingly, Willard applied for a state kennel license - which would allow her to own more than 25 dogs -after being charged with animal cruelty. If she is convicted, Willard will not be allowed to hold a state kennel license under the new dog law.

Gnalli

Nov. 30, 2009, 08:10 AM

Beverley

Jan. 15, 2010, 12:19 AM

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100113_SPCA_and_kennel_owner_reach_a_compromise. html

Equibrit

Jan. 15, 2010, 02:02 PM

Different version; http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/01/murder-hollow-bassets-fail-court.html

LexInVA

Jan. 15, 2010, 02:11 PM

Very interesting but not surprising. I wonder where the truth is in all of this.

Chester's Mom

Jan. 15, 2010, 02:42 PM

If part of the agreement was to start to provide clean water daily in their standing water containers; I'd say that speaks volumes as to the actual found conditions. The judge sounds like a reasonable man who only noted items that really needed fixing.

LexInVA

Jan. 15, 2010, 02:59 PM

I would certainly like to see the photographic evidence for myself but we'll never see what was found.

JSwan

Jan. 15, 2010, 03:19 PM

Different version; http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/01/murder-hollow-bassets-fail-court.html

Wow. He must really walk funny with that big chip on his shoulder. I had no clue his feud with Never Yet Melted was still going on. Angry white men - how attractive. not.

But his analysis of the decision is based on the SPCA's article - and I'm afraid no one is going to get the truth out of them or their favorite reporter.

My goodness - better go check the dogs for ticks.

LexInVA

Jan. 15, 2010, 03:46 PM

Please check your chickens for missing feathers too. Don't want them to freeze. :rolleyes:

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Jan. 15, 2010, 03:54 PM

From Terrierman's linked blog page:
For one, Basset Hounds are generally not used for hunting in this country. The activities of a Basset Club are mostly comprised of overweight and aged matrons playing dress-up as they walk around a hay field with their dogs ambling around in front of them. After an hour or so, there is a break for lunch and tea. No one has a gun, and "no animals are killed in the making of this movie."

Damn, JSwan, if you'd only told me that, I'd already have taken you up on that foot-follow invitation!:winkgrin: Silly me, I thought I'd have to be able to run through brush after hounds. If I'd known I could amble around with a sammie in one hand, I'da been all over it.:lol:

Terrierman's showing his ignorance, I'm afraid.

LexInVA

Jan. 15, 2010, 03:58 PM

Imagine how fun it could be with gyros?!

JSwan

Jan. 15, 2010, 05:38 PM

Please check your chickens for missing feathers too. Don't want them to freeze. :rolleyes:

The frozen ones are already featherless.

And headless.

And legless.

And for dinner. :D

You wanna hear something really funny? Among some sportsmen, anyone who uses a dog for hunting (bassets or terriers) isn't a "real man". Real men use a bow.

Silly boys. Always enamored with their trouser trouts. ;)

Bob Kane

Jan. 15, 2010, 06:41 PM

What happened to the $10,000's in legal donations collected by NAIA/MFA/NBCA? Julian Prager and others claimed "winning" this case would set a national precedent favorable to dog owners in PA and across the country. What a fraud. At least Terrierman and I got that right. :mad:

LexInVA

Jan. 15, 2010, 07:06 PM

The money probably went to refurbish someone's hunting lodge. If any of it even existed to begin with.

Equibrit

Jan. 15, 2010, 07:28 PM

Anyone subscribe to Bailys ?; http://www.bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-169_Murder-Hollow-Bassets--311209.php

Murder Hollow Bassets - 31/12/09

The latest news on the Murder Hollow case is that the Pennsylvania Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' Chairman of the Board, Harrisse Yaron, suddenly resigned last week. The PSPCA under her direction and management has refused to respond to questions about the condition and location o...

Subscribe to Baily's Hunting Directory to read this story in full.

halla

Jan. 16, 2010, 12:00 AM

Pictures (just two) here, though not sure how they got them:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/Charges_dropped_rules_set_for_Phila_kennel_owner.h tml

Equibrit

Jan. 16, 2010, 09:54 AM

That is one picture and the same one as in previous links.

lcw579

Jan. 16, 2010, 12:08 PM

You need to click at the top of the picture to see the next one that shows the full body shot. Not pretty.

Although, I do wonder how these hounds were winning at the Hound Shows if the conditions were that deplorable. Is the picture released of just one old ratty looking dog that had existing health problems or were there multiple dogs in the same condition? I know when I took my ancient cat to be put down he looked like an abuse case and not the well loved but fading old man that he was. He just had so many health problems that he looked awful.

I guess we'll never know the whole story.....

Equibrit

Jan. 16, 2010, 01:44 PM

That is one picture and the same one as in previous links.

Repeat.

lcw579

Jan. 17, 2010, 12:31 PM

No, at the top right of the picture it says 1 of 2. Click on the arrow and you get the full body shot. I saw it with my own eyes - twice now!

Ajierene

Jan. 17, 2010, 12:38 PM

I cannot see either picture with my computer for some reason. The one posted in the blog, I have trouble seeing the issues that are described in the picture. Any way someone can send me the second one? I seem to be having trouble with Adobe flashplayer or something....

JSwan

Jan. 17, 2010, 12:58 PM

It's the same dog - one is a head shot and one shows its head and torso.

Other than being really old and needing a bath - sorry - it's not screaming "neglect" to me. It's screaming - time to give the hound a bath and Frontline. One of my dogs died at the age of 16 and looked pretty scraggly - he was just old and toothless and being a hound - often needed a bath.
Meh. They took a photo of the saddest oldest dog.

Though I'm putting Frontline on my dogs every 3 weeks and still pick ticks off them year round - and both have been treated for Lyme several times. Sigh.....

The SPCA never seized any of her dogs - if there was neglect they would have. They told her to surrender them.

She's getting one back - her house pet. She's also entitled to know what happened to the other dogs. That's unusual. Very unusual.

The SPCA is spinning this but if you look at the court file - um... they made some big mistakes. Over the past few months each "charge" for noise and other zoning violations were dismissed. Everything that formed the basis for the complaint was dismissed. There was one matter that was appealed and her atty lost - something peculiar to their states dog laws but I can't remember what it was.

In the meantime - the SPCA had more crises within the department. I wonder if they'll be fired again. halla might know more about that.

This incident reminded me a lot of the Fletcher Street incident - same SPCA, same strong arm tactics, same lack of evidence and dismissals, same "spin".

But in the end - since the animals are surrendered the SPCA still wins. Had they been seized - the owners would have been afforded due process.

I find that to be deeply troubling - that an owner could be pressured or coerced into acting against their own interests - without benefit of advice of counsel. If you are accused of a crime - the gov't must be able to prove you are guilty. Being coerced into surrendering your animals - sorry - I didn't think it used to be a big deal but you know... it's ripe for abuse.

She could be any one of us who pissed off the wrong person, or engaged in an activity some politically biased SPCA wanted to make an example of.

I don't have any idea what her legal bills were but Lordy - if any of you have had to retain counsel you'd know just a retainer fee could be 3-5K - plus hourly after that.

lcw579

Jan. 17, 2010, 01:20 PM

JSwan, I agree with you. Like I said I had an old cat that looked like an abuse case in his waning days - he was just old and circling the drain but still happy. As for the ticks, in PA this year the ticks were horrendous so seeing a faceful on a picture of a dog in the Fall is not surprising at all.

I don't trust that SPCA at all. And you are right it is just like Fletcher Street. And we all know that was much ado about nothing.

JSwan, you have seen this hounds at shows, correct? This is what has me confused - how can the SPCA even begin to claim neglect when, correct me if I'm wrong, these dogs did well when showing? If conditions were so deplorable as to require seizure, how could the hounds be healthy and shiny enough to compete and hunt successfully?

The whole thing reeks of witchhunt.

JSwan

Jan. 17, 2010, 01:42 PM

Well, that's just it. There was no seizure.

People are confusing the terminology here - probably because they don't really know much about how this all works.

When you surrender an animal, it is like taking it to the pound. You give up ownership immediately. The shelter becomes the owner and can adopt it out, sterilize it, euthanize it, etc.

When your animal is seized, it is because there is probable cause to believe that the animal is in danger due to lack of veterinary care, or some other imminent danger or evidence of neglect, starving, abuse, etc.

She was told to surrender 11 hounds - because of a zoning violation - a charge that was later dismissed. She did have a kennel license but had not complied with subsequent changes of which she was not aware. The rest of her pack remained in the kennel.

Again - a zoning violation. Not an animal welfare concern. Just..... zoning.

Another charge that was dismissed was about barking. She did have a kennel license (although it was problematic) and there was no violation of any noise ordinance. So - dismissed.

She made several mistakes. One - ignoring the notes left on her door. Unfortunately, I think we can understand that there are people who think that if they ignore a problem it will go away; particularly legal problems.

That's a serious error. Problems don't go away when we stick our head in the sand.

Another mistake was not to know her rights, and to mistake knowing her rights with not being cooperative. It's not one or the other. You can be polite and respectful and still assert your constitutional rights. She did neither.

Another mistake was throwing rocks at the departing vehicles. I think I can understand how overwrought she was - but you know..... that is a mistake! WTF?

Her biggest mistake was surrendering the dogs - she should have demanded they be seized. That is what triggers due process. Once she surrendered them - she gave them up permanently no matter how innocent she was. There is no due process afforded an owner, and no protection against coercion or malfeasance on the part of law enforcement. However, the option of surrendering does give LEO and ACO's some latitude and discretion - but at what cost to an individual rights against self incrimination, the right to consult with counsel, the right to remain silent...... that is a legitimate concern.

You'll note that the SPCA and their reporter keep referring to her as a "breeder". She's not a breeder - but that phrase is chosen to reflect the puppy mill/breeder politics of that state. This SPCA was at the forefront of that political battle and still is.

This was a very politically charged case especially among PA dog breeders.

I'm sorry - dogs testing positive for Lyme disease in the Mid-Atlantic is just not unusual. A sad looking basset hound is well - a joke. They all look sad. Old dogs look....old. Bassets are not supposed to be obese couch potatoes- bassets are supposed to be slim. That hound was not underweight.

I do think that photo shows a dog that needed a bath and a nail trimming and Frontline.

I've seen the pack at hound shows and they look like slim hunting bassets - the young ones look sleeker and more energetic than the old ones. The old ones have a more rough coat and are a bit saggy.

If the judge saw something horrible in the photos the charges would not have been dismissed.

He probably saw a leaky roof and some bowls that needed scrubbing and thought this was a bullsh** case that he didn't want to waste his time on.

ETA - sorry computer froze and I had to restart. This is just my opinion and assessment - it's worth very penny you paid for it. Just sayin'. :-)

vacation1

Jan. 17, 2010, 03:12 PM

I apologize in advance for the very long post, but I think it's relevant background on the organization at the center of the mess.

Animal control is Philadelphia is historically a nightmare. The PSPCA walked away from their earlier contract in 2002 when the city refused to ban pit bulls - 99% of the homeless dog problem, and a product of the city's huge dog-fighting problem. The city itself took over, which caused near heart failure in anyone familiar with Philly's 'corrupt and content' pay-to-play system of government. The Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association quickly became infamous for having bad, bad people in charge and for random, arbitrary euthanizations. There were reforms, and the adoption rate rose, the worst abuses stopped. And then the PSPCA took over again in 2009. Oddly, their bid for the contract came even while the state-wide nonprofit was having serious cash and PR problems elsewhere in PA.

From what I've read elsewhere, it seems that the PSPCA was insane to go after the Philly contract. A group already in financial and organizational turmoil taking on responsibility for a major metro area teeming with feral cats, home to long-entrenched pit bull rings producing thousands of unwanted dogs each year, and whose adopter pool consists largely of a poor population that just can't make spay/neuter a priority? Madness. 99% of dogs in the city shelters are pits, and PACAC is so crazed to find them new homes they're advertising on craigslists in southern and central NJ. The kitten situation is even worse; dozens of litters are listed on CL, pleading for someone to come foster.

The Philadelphia Weekly article is itself fascinating.
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/Led-aStray-43380837.html

* The PSPCA's head vet was fired for doing work at an alleged pit bull fighting kennel?

* The PSPCA was cooking its euth/adoption numbers, counting dogs/cats who'd been shipped from one shelter to another as 'live exit' - no further note of whether it left shelter #2 alive or dead.

* An atypically large number of animals were sickening and/or dying in foster care, particularly kittens, as the PSPCA was not vaccinating new animals immediately, as would be standard practice for an organization with routine medical care built into their shelter system.

And according to a Jan 15 article in the Daily News, the PSPCA is running out of cash

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20100115_Stu_Bykofsky__Financially_unstable_PSPCA_ _Can_it_be_saved_.html

Contributing to the PSPCA's financial problems are legal bills run up in the wake of raids (to rescue untended animals) that led to lawsuits. I was told that the well-connected Obermayer law firm was paid $300,000 over some years to defend PSPCA. Obermayer lawyer Jim Penny is on the board and Obermayer attorney Walter Phillips is married to board member Valerie Phillips, leading to an accusation that board members are benefiting financially. Norr declined to provide numbers, but says that Obermayer bills PSPCA at a "substantially discounted rate," and that Penny never charged for his services.

I don't share some people's worry/paranoia about the SPCA or animal rights groups, and I don't particularly like hunting. But I find it suspicious that the only visual evidence presented to the media is 2 photos of 1 dog, and that dog doesn't look that bad. He doesn't look that good, and I wouldn't want my dog to look like that, but compared to the other problems the PSPCA faces in Puppy Mill USA and Dog Fighting City, I find it a little baffling that their response to the Murder Hollow allegations was so - big.

Fairview Horse Center

Jan. 17, 2010, 06:38 PM

I just want to point out that the two photos are really one. One body shot, and a face shot cropped out of that. The ticks that appear on the head are the very tiny ones, and since they are not bloated, most likely to have been picked up within 24 hours prior. So was this older hound out in the woods on a run the day before?

If I remember correctly, this "raid" was in the early hours of the morning, so before kennels had been cleaned for the day. No surprise that they needed cleaning, and the water bowls could have used dumping and filling.

flagday

Feb. 1, 2010, 07:40 AM

I would love to know what is happening behind closed doors now. The judge placed conditions on both sides. Ms Willard was to make certain kennel upgrades and PSPCA was to produce a house dog, Oshkosh for her and allow her to have input in adoption of the other dogs though no final say in their adoption. After saying "yes" to the judge's conditions I hear that a few days later PSPCA said the dogs were already adopted and Oshkosh had a large medical bill. The judge ordered these claims substantiated and I have not heard if that has happened. It will be a difficult time of year to improve drainage at the kennel, but I have known these dogs, and never saw any foot infectons or the conditions you might expect if they were kept in muddy, unsanitary conditions. Echo the lack of trust in PSPCA.

flagday

Feb. 20, 2010, 09:12 AM

How long can this continue? I have no idea whether the PSPCA is malicious or incompetent, but they have thumbed their noses at the judge's negotiated settlement since day one. They agreed to conditions concerning adoption they knew could not be kept with the CEO on the phone. The citations speak of lack of veterinary care, but no medical records suggesting anything beyond conjunctivitis, ectoparasites, and these controversial Lymes tests results. These "records" are one time "boiler plate" exams in which dogs ranging from 2 years to 12 years are deemed to be similar in every way. The "medical records" from TriState are a letter from a non medical professional at TriSTate and a bill with no associated medical record from their vet. If you and I had not followed a judge's order more precisely we would be in contempt and facing fines and jail time, but the PSPCA is either walking on water or skating on thin ice. I suppose time will tell.

elysian*fields*farm

Feb. 21, 2010, 08:39 PM

I'm no attorney, but it sure sounds like the hound pack owner needs one ASAP!!! Maybe it is not too late to file a civil suit for return of the dogs. Sounds like these people repersented themselves as having the power of immediate seizure when they didn't. Don't they have to have a signed warrant?

I'm all for animals being cared for humainly and correctly, but some of these "animal welfare" groups really make me nervous.

Here in my parish an "animal welfare" group formed recently that is a 501c1 non-profit. They keep going to the town and the parish asking to be designated as the official animal control and welfare group for the town and our parish (Louisiana version of a county.) They say they need this designation to be able to apply for grants, but I think they have another agenda in mind.

When they formed originally, they said they were concerned about the homeless dogs and cats being dumped in our rural parish, and wanted to foster and adopt out these. I can't begin to count the number of people who have told me they have called them about strays, only to be told that "there are no foster homes available, now-- why don't you care for the animal-- we'll see if we can get a bag of food to you." They also said they wanted to help with several colonies of feral cats by by trapping, spaying and neutering and then returning them to the colony. I haven't seen much trapping going on.

But recently, according to articles in a local on-line "newspaper" they have been taking pictures of dogs in people's yards that they claim are not being cared for properly, and posting these with stories that insinuate the owners of these animals are guilty of animal abuse or neglect. They are careful not to go on the owners' properties to take the photos. They take them from the street with a telephoto lense or from the yard of a neighbor from whom they have gotten permission.

They have also begun riding around taking pictures and complaining to the sheriff about horses, cattle and goats that think are not being properly kept. I know they tried to report a horse owner who had her horse in a "dry" lot with a shed and hay and water available 24/7 because the horse "didn't have any grass to eat." They were furious when the sheriff refused to act saying there were no laws against keeping a horse stalled 24/7 much less keeping it in a dry lot with food and water available.

I guess it is only a matter of time before more and more animal owners all over will have to deal with the terrible situation that befell the owner of these bassett hounds.

cowgirljenn

Feb. 22, 2010, 10:17 AM

Here in my parish an "animal welfare" group formed recently that is a 501c1 non-profit. They keep going to the town and the parish asking to be designated as the official animal control and welfare group for the town and our parish (Louisiana version of a county.) They say they need this designation to be able to apply for grants, but I think they have another agenda in mind.

Oh BS to them. We've gotten a couple of grants and have submitted four so far this year. And we're not designated as animal control.

When I was new to rescue and more zealous, I admit that I did want the group I run to be designated as THE group to do horse seizures. What a fool I was then. :) Time has softened me a lot.... and taught me a lot of lessons.

I heard of a group in AR who went in and got a bunch of horses seized. Because they were standing in 6-18 inches of mud. Much of AR was flooded last summer, and a LOT of horses were standing in mud and water. The horses in the photos looked healthy, and the group admitted that they weren't underweight. They were just in mud. Heck, MY horses have been in mud recently.. not much you can do when it won't stop raining.

These bad groups have worn me down. I know it'll make my job harder, but I agree now that we're going to have to have some regulations on animal rescues. Or else my job won't be harder - it'll be impossible. *sigh*

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 22, 2010, 10:35 AM

vineyridge

Oct. 13, 2010, 12:16 AM

There was an update to this sent out today on FOL.
From Baily's:
http://www.bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-341_Murder-Hollow-Bassets-Update --All-Charges-Withdrawn.php

Murder Hollow Bassets Update - All Charges Withdrawn

After more than 14 months, all 22 counts of animal cruelty charged against
Murder Hollow Bassets master Wendy Willard in August of 2009 by the
Pennsylvania Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) in
Philadelphia County were withdrawn on October 5, 2010 in Philadelphia
Municipal Court. Wendy was also found to be in complete compliance with
all applicable statutes.

You may recall that on July 27, 2009, the life of Wendy Willard, a retired
social studies teacher and nationally recognized Master of a pack of
hounds known as Murder Hollow Bassets, changed forever. That day, using a
warrant obtained following a trespass on her property, the PSPCA searched
Wendy's barn, seized 11 of 23 hounds and pressured her to sign so-called
"surrender agreements" by threatening to take the other 12 dogs and
subjecting her to a heavy fine if she refused.

The search and seizure was performed under the guise of enforcing the
Philadelphia "limit law," applicable only to residential dwelling units,
and not a barn inhabited by dogs. However, before Wendy was charged with
anything, and without notification to her, all of the hounds were spayed
and neutered after their seizure. Worse still one of the hounds was killed
as a result of a botched attempt at surgery during the mass spay/neuter
operations performed by the PSPCA. The 10 remaining live hounds became
infected with a lung virus in the PSPCA's facility. The PSPCA then sent
those 10, with medications, to an unlicensed "rescue" operation that sold
them all for "adoption" before any hearing on the charges took place.

Wendy was charged in Philadelphia with 22 summary counts of animal cruelty
alleging unsanitary conditions and lack of veterinary care. These charges
were denied, aggressively defended and now all have been withdrawn.

leilatigress

Oct. 13, 2010, 11:57 AM

Condolences to Wendy on the loss of her hounds and for all involved on this one. It's a very fine line to walk between an animal representative and animal fanatic. Some manage it and many don't. Didn't the COTH hunt get to hunt with part of this pack this month at their gathering? I would love to say I am shocked at the behavior of the rescue but I'm not. I would be demanding restitution from that rescue and full disclosure of adoption records on those hounds. Especially those belonging to other people.

PRS

Oct. 13, 2010, 01:57 PM

It is absolutely shocking to me that on the one hand we have a woman with her, purported to be, well cared for pack of hounds who doesn't get a single warning or chance to rehome her dogs herself but they get stolen from her and dispersed without due process. On the other hand we regularly read articles about animals that live in misery, sometimes for years, without any animal welfare agency taking action despite many complaints and visits by "animal control". There is something seriously wrong with this picture. I'd be curious to know the back story on why this particular case resulted in an immediate seizure without warning or a chance for the owner to correct the problem herself.

Chester's Mom

Oct. 14, 2010, 10:09 AM

There was an update to this sent out today on FOL.

VR: I can't find any news articles to support that, the last one I see is this one from July 29th:

*The Bassett hound kennel owner in Philadelphia who was the subject of a Pennsylvania SPCA raid last year has been ordered to allow three more months of unannounced inspections.
Under a consent order issued earlier this month, Wendy Willard has agreed to monthly inspections at her Roxborough kennel by the PSPCA through September. In addition she may only keep no more than 12 dogs (the limit under Philadelphia's ordinances), five of which must be spayed or neutered, and she must show proof of veterinary care.
However, it states if Willard receives a state kennel license she may keep up to 23 dogs. (Murder Hollow was listed on the state kennel database with a pending license request several months ago but that listing has since disappeared.)
The court also ordered Willard to install proper drainage, repair and maintain the interior ceiling and remove feces from the barn and runs daily. In return, animal cruelty charges against Willard will be dropped pending successful completion of the inspections.
Willard, whose case generated widespread support among sporting dog and animal owners' rights groups, also was ordered to contact her supporters and "request' that they not engage in threats against humane officers. PSPCA officers reported receiving Internet death threats following the raid.
During one visit by humane agents and state dog wardens to the property, Willard was accused of throwing stones at vehicles driven by PSPCA and dog officers.
This consent order appears to be an extension of an agreement reached by Willard and the PSPCA in January in which she had six months to clean up her property, take better care of her dogs and allow inspections. Neither the PSPCA nor the district attorney's office would comment on the case.
In July 2009, the PSPCA raided Willard's property and filed 22 citations against her for failing to adequately care for 23 dogs on her property, 11 more than allowed under city ordinances. Eleven dogs were removed, most suffering from tick and parasite infestation. (Ten of the dogs were placed with rescue groups and, according to an Internet discussion group of Williard supporters, one died while being spayed at the PSPCA.)
Willard’s pack, formed in 1986, participated in sporting dog competitions throughout the region and won awards at the Bryn Mawr Hound Show.*

It does of course say if she does the upgrades needed that charges will be dropped (not for lack of evidence but for compliance).