Judge: Animal Advocates Illegally Took Dogs
Don't blink or this story might disappear again. That's right. Wherever it's posted, it keeps getting pulled off the Internet. First it was posted on wsmv.com in Nashville on 4/15/11, but it was quickly yanked. But it had already been picked up and posted on MSNBC.com. Sometime on 4/16/11 the story was removed. I guess the truth hurts.
Judge: Animal Advocates Illegally Took Dogs
Advocates Say Pets Unhealthy, Needed Veterinary Care
POSTED: 5:06 pm CDT April 15, 2011
UPDATED: 5:32 pm CDT April 15, 2011
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A judge has ruled animal advocates acted illegally when they took more than 100 dogs from a Warren County home.
A judge ruled Friday that Wilma Jones can keep four of her dogs. She agreed to give up the rest after animal advocates seized the dogs from pens in Jones' back yard.
The judge said Friday that raid was illegal because Jones was not charged criminally.
The advocates said the dogs were unhealthy and needed veterinary care.
The dogs Jones surrendered will be available for adoption.
As we wrote in our original story about the raid on Mrs. Jones, if Scotlund Haisley is involved in a raid, you better not count on it being legal. There have still not been any charges filed against Mrs. Jones. As the judge very correctly pointed out in court, that makes the seizure of her dogs illegal. So, what does that mean for the 117 dogs that were seized from her? She gave up ownership of the dogs in court because ARC was demanding $100,000 for their care. But the dogs would not have been in ARC's custody if they had not illegally seized the dogs. Does this mean Mrs. Jones could demand to get her dogs back now? Unfortunately, the dogs have most likely been spayed and neutered by this time, which means they are not valuable as breeding animals at this point. Perhaps it means that we'll be seeing Mrs. Jones taking ARC and those who assisted them to civil court to be reimbursed for the value of her stolen dogs. Not to mention other damages. We've been told that during the seizure officials were very rough with this 72 year-old-woman.
There might be a lot of people to sue. Consider the possibly libelous things said about Mrs. Jones and the vendetta being plotted against her on the Facebook page of the so-called "Warren County Humane Society of McMinnville, TN." We've put the name of this group in quotes because we've been informed that there is no such official organization. The county had an official humane society at one time but now they only have an animal control department. The people calling themselves by this name currently are only rescuers acting as vigilantes in Warren County. They're a 501(c)3 group with no facilities and they don't officially represent McMinnville or Warren county. These are the same people who illegally took two Great Danes a couple of months ago and, when ordered by a judge to return them, claimed that they "lost" one of them. Yeah, right. Now you can see that they are planning more "undercover" work (and planting "evidence"?) so they can check on Mrs. Jones pets. And they think it's a good idea to call in bogus animal abuse claims against her because they don't like the way the legal system works. It's people like this who give good animal rescues a bad name.
So, let's add it all up. Vigilante rescue people worked undercover for three weeks, possibly planting evidence, at the home and kennels of a 72-year-old woman. They called in ARC, Animal Rescue Corps, headed by Scotlund Haisley, who is already named in at least two lawsuits by breeders for illegally seizing dogs. They took 121 dogs and five birds. Mrs. Jones had to surrender 117 of the dogs when ARC demanded she come up with $100,000 for their care, but she asked to keep her personal pets and birds. The judge ruled that the seizure had been illegal because Mrs. Jones has never been charged with anything at all, and he gave her back her four house dogs and her birds.
Of course, it's possible the DA could pull something together and charge Mrs. Jones with something, just to save face. But it looks pretty bad right now. The District Attorney was actually at the scene of the raid, making speeches before it occurred. Wouldn't you think there might be charges by now if there were some real grounds for them? Or maybe ARC and their undercover friends have taken everyone for a ride. You have to wonder how much $$$$ ARC has received in donations for these dogs, along with all of the generous donations of goods and services from people and businesses. That sounds like the definition of a scam to me. All too often when dogs are seized from breeders it comes down to one thing: money. Steal dogs from breeders so they can be sold and the money goes to rescues and shelters, rather than to the breeder who has invested money in caring for the dogs and raising them. In cases with seizure bonds set so high, as in this one, with ARC demanding $100,000 to care for the dogs, they also make money on the front end, before the dogs are even sold, from the "care" of the dogs, despite donations. And the amount set for the care of the dogs has been greatly inflated.
We'll have to wait and see what happens next. I do hope Mrs. Jones has her day in court, and not the way her more rabid detractors have been hoping.
Posts
The Google cache view of the MSNBC piece is still available for viewing at this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2Q3sUVGMTVIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42616074/ns/local_news-nashville_tn/+Animal+Advocates+Illegally+Took+Dogs&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
http://tinyurl.com/3fa3pbf
Wow. God please bless and help Mrs. Jones. The animal rights nuts really love those soft targets don't they. It makes me so angry to see elderly people victimized like this.
ReplyDeleteConsider making links that allow your blog to be instantly posted to facebook & twitter.
ReplyDeleteWow... did you actually see the condition of these dogs? Their fur was matted, their pads were scalded from resting in their own urine for so long (much longer than the three weeks you claim ARC "planted" evidence) and their teeth were almost all rotted out. To say that the majority of these animals were in any way "cared" for is an outright lie. I admit I spoil my dog, but basic care is an absolute must and that includes routine check ups with a veterinarian, adequate food and shelter (not wire bottomed rabbit hutches) and affection. Take a look at the dozens of photos that show the truth. If you still believe she deserves the right to own any animal, then you are just as much a part of the problem as she is.
ReplyDeleteThe DA seize those dogs with the assistance of ARC! Oh please don't feel sorry for Ms. Jones. There were seven dead dogs on the property, of which two were in a cage with live dogs. Dogs were so matted that they are matted to the cages, urine burns on dogs paws, dogs were flea ridden, had many ticks, kennel cough, mange, dehydrated, so hungry they were eating their own feces, and the list goes on. This is not healthy. This is not loving your animals. These were not her pets they were profit! There are good breeder out there, Ms. Jones was NOT one of them.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion, Maggie. As soon as we figure out how to do the Facebook and Twitter links we'll put them up.
ReplyDeleteI have seen the pictures and videos that are on the Warren County HS Facebook page, and videos that were online. The pictures I saw just don't look like what you are describing. How do dogs have ticks and fleas during a cold Tennessee winter when those parasites don't survive cold weather? And maybe you can explain to me how dogs that were in such supposedly terrible shape can be ready for adoption in just a few days? Every dog I see looks plump and ready to play. They hardly look like dogs that have been living in terrible conditions.
ReplyDeleteMany of of the dogs were in very poor condition. Ear mites, lice and mange were all common conditions among the dogs pulled from this woman's house. One of the first pictures in the album is of a cavalier king charle spaniel with half of it's body bare due to severe mange. Despite the fact that this particular breed of dog was bred to be a human companion (it's original purpose was literally to be a lap dog) it was deprived of human affection and veterinary care. Some of the younger dogs were in ok condition. Though many of them still had to be shaved down because their fur was so matted. Fur matting can become so bad if not taken care of that it can actually twist and tear the dogs skin. It is painful, just like when a woman with long hair has a knot in her hair. Since the rescue, a dog has given birth and was so malnourished she was unable to produce enough milk for her puppies. If they had not been born outside of those deplorable conditions, none of them would have survived. And as for fleas and ticks, I have seen both people and dogs in the last few weeks who have had a tick or two. As for their quick recovery, one of the most amazing things about dogs is that they rebound so quickly. These dogs are learning from their foster brothers and sisters what fun grass is to run on and how exciting a squeaky toy can be. They are learning that even after losing most of their teeth to decay, someone will still feed them something they can eat. They are becoming the companion animals they were meant to be.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. Even if everything you say is true, dogs should not be removed from owners or breeders because they need to be groomed. Ask any groomer how many matted dogs they see every day. Every thing you mention is something that is very easy to treat. This is not "animal abuse." This is a case, like many others, where a warning should be given, or where volunteers needed to help an owner who wasn't able to keep up with caring for the dogs. But the dogs should not have been seized during a raid, where someone's 4th amendment rights were trampled. The 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, and I would say the raids on dog breeders fall into that category when there is no active abuse going on. Lice and matted fur do not constitute abuse. They mean the owner needs some help with the dogs or the dogs need some grooming. Not that the owner should have all their dogs seized and have to surrender ownership of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as I'm sure you probably know, small and toy breed dogs are particularly at risk of tooth decay. Vets estimate that about 2/3 of adult dogs have some dental disease, so it's not surprising if the dogs had some teeth problems. That is hardly grounds for seizing dogs, or it shouldn't be.
Who reported that the seizure was not legal? Which news agency? Which judge ruled against the seizure? Has that been verify? Many times stories are pulled from the internet because they are inaccurate. I need more information before I jump on this bandwagon. Both sides of the animal rights fence use inflammatory phrases and highly exaggerated detailed to make their point.
ReplyDeleteI do know, however, about the condition of some of the dogs pulled - especially the little cream pom. I'm fostering her. She was emaciated - medically speaking. She had 8 abscessed teeth, aka rotting in her mouth with infection. Medically speaking - she has no muscle tone and stumbles when she walks. She has bad patellas which we aren't scoring until her muscle tone gets better so we can be accurate. She has ear infections we're treating. One dog having these issues doesn't necessitate abuse/neglect. Okay - so what does? Over 10? Over 20? Over 50? How many of the 117 dogs would it take, in your opinion?
The story was posted locally on WSMV.com in Nashville. And, if you want confirmation, you can check the Warren County humane society Facebook pages where the information was confirmed by people who were present in the courtroom. Illegal seizure. Wilma Jones has not been charged with anything, which means her dogs were seized — why? For no legal reason. That is an illegal seizure under the law.
ReplyDeleteMany times stories are pulled from the Internet because somebody with a little bit of local power doesn't like the story or its implications. There's nothing inflammatory or exaggerated here. You can check for yourself.
What does "medically speaking" mean? Are you a vet? Are you quoting a vet? Did the vet work for ARC? I would say that anyone who worked for ARC has to be viewed with suspicion, and that includes any diagnoses they made about the dogs. ARC has a huge financial interest in making these dogs appear ill and in poor condition. Unless they made the dogs sound ill, they wouldn't have had any reason to ask for donations or demand $100,000 from Wilma Jones.
I won't argue with you if you say that you are fostering a dog that is in bad condition. I will say that most of the dogs that I saw in the photos and video looked like they needed grooming but otherwise seemed to be pretty healthy looking. And they did not look thin.
OH MY GOSH! I can't believe this! The exact SAME THING has happened here in Humphreys County TN! They seized 36 dogs (9 of which were AKC German Shepherd Pups) a mom about to deliver AKC pups, and the other half were family pets that were spayed and/or nutered. They claimed they had worms, although the owner had just been to her vet 2 days prior and had all records to prove her visits. They still took all the dogs and charged her, her husband (home disabiled who took care of all of them) and her daughter (home who helped, because she wasnt currently working). There were no fleas, ticks, no feaces in the yard, they had 12 acres of land, the the dogs had two bedrooms of their own in their home as they loved them so much. I personally knew this family who would take in any stray, bring it back to health and give it away to a good home just so it didnt go to the local shelter and risk being killed. EVEN BEFORE a hearing took place, they made an offer to give 8 of their dogs back, but keep all the puppies including the newborn AKC German Sheperds which gave them a total of about 18 AKC purebread dogs they could sell or make money on. BUT.....the kicker is. ALL their dogs, they paid high dollar for that were for breeding, they spayed and neutered (even the ones returned) before a hearing even took place. ALSO....come to find out...many non-profit charities, the first being PetSmart Charities, donated 36 crates, dog beds, medicaion, and 2 months worth of food. the local Humane Society was requesting volunteers to come help the shelter. We live in a small rural town and the shelter is for profit run by the City. They go to Court on April 6th and have been asked to give up all their other dogs to the shelter and if they will, the shelter will drop all charges. THIS IS MESSED UP! Any suggestions? I have called Channel 4, Channel 2, Channel 5, THATS MESSED UP GUY, and no one seems to care! I posted on my FB wall pictures of all the ones I could get of their pets. The shelter has already gotten a list of people asking for the AKC puppies. They stand to make a lot of money on this but want to charge my friend $2400 in vet bills for finding a wormes, never giving them a chance to treat the animals, and spay/nutering them along with $100 a day for everyday the dogs were in the shelter. Do you have any attorney recommendations? Please help if you can. You can email me at Sharnalou@yahoo.com. I will call you to discuss in more detail.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of thing has recently happened to us in Indiana. Our dogs were illegally seized on April 19th and nobody will answer our questions, there was no warrant, no citations, no charges yet filed and officers refuse to return our calls. We are trying to file a civil action against them for illegal search and seizure and anything else we can get them with. My 3 dogs alone are worth about $2500 and our uncles have their own dogs. Kicker is....they had seized goats and horses and have since returned them, but no the dogs. I have a petition I've started here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/742/064/012/save-my-dogs-taken-in-illegal-search-and-seizure/
DeleteDo you know about the Petlaw list? There might be people on that e-mail list who can help you. There are over 3500 members and they have a lot of experience with dog law and cases like these. www.pet-law.com/ There's a link on the left side of the page that will take you to join the list if you're interested.
DeleteI'm checking with a couple of people now to see what they suggest. It's hard to get the media interested because they usually side with the shelters and rescues and assume the owners are guilty. The system is bad and rigged against owners. I'll see if I can come up with any suggestions for an attorney.
ReplyDelete