From an animal perspective, Chattanooga has been a hot spot this summer. Things started to erupt in June when the animal control folks at the McKamey Center say they got a tip from an employee at The Pet Company, located in swanky Hamilton Place Mall. The employee, acting as a whistleblower, claimed that conditions at the store were not good. This had to be a dream come true for McKamey. There were many people in Chattanooga who had been petitioning against the pet store for years, simply on the grounds that they sold live animals, regardless of the care they received.
So, the McKamey people rounded up an inspector from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and some police and conducted an inspection/raid on The Pet Company early one morning in mid-June. They took away with them over 80 animals when they left — puppies, hamsters — everything but the fish — and were confident that the store would be closed permanently.
But, not so fast.
The Pet Company was not some local Tennessee resident with no money who could be intimidated by animal control. Instead, they are a large chain of pet stores located throughout the United States, headquartered in New Jersey. They appear to be quite a profitable company, or they appeared to be when you could find their company web site online. It seems to be missing now, no doubt because of hate mail. At any rate, The Pet Company was prepared to fight back against McKamey and the charges being made. They wanted their animals back and they had no intention of losing their license to operate.
What followed in Chattanooga was nothing short of a circus over the next several weeks. Several news outlets followed the story, with varying degrees of impartiality. The Chattanooga Times Free Press generally gives the most straightforward accounts. You can read The Chattanoogan for more florid details.
Instead of accepting the loss of their animals and license, The Pet Company went to trial to fight the charges against them. They wanted the charges tossed out. Judge Sherry Paty presided over a very difficult case. I thought she did a superb job in a hard situation. After hearing several days of testimony from The Pet Company and from McKamey — during which the inspector for the State of Tennessee admitted he didn’t know what some of the items he was supposed to cover on his report meant; the whistleblower seemed to be caught lying about seeing a live hamster being put in a trash compactor; and other exaggerations were revealed — Judge Paty rendered her decision. The Pet Company would get their animals back. All but some of the puppies which were being treated for giardia at McKamey (giardia is a parasite that is easily passed among dogs, especially puppies, and can be simply treated). As far as the store’s license to operate was concerned, Judge Paty said she would abide by the decision reached by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in a few days.
Chattanooga boiled over. There were practically demands for Judge Paty’s head on a platter. People couldn’t understand why this PET STORE which sold puppies wasn’t being punished.
To make matters even worse, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in Nashville said that The Pet Company could continue to operate if they would do a better job of following animal care guidelines. There would be frequent inspections but they could keep their license.
By this time the good people of Chattanooga, especially the people in charge of the city, had all they could stomach of The Pet Company. These rascals from New Jersey (and the city elite were reminding people that The Pet Company was from out of town at every opportunity in the press) were sticking it to the locals! They were being slick with their “legal maneuvering,” i.e., having a good attorney.
But this wasn’t the end of the story. At this point McKamey was left holding the bag for what they claimed was $40,000 in costs for caring for puppies and hamsters for a few weeks. (I wish somebody would pay ME that much for taking care of animals.) They were demanding that The Pet Company reimburse them and refusing to return the animals to them.
Just when you thought this story couldn’t get any more convoluted came the news that Judge Paty was recusing herself from the case. It seems that Mayor Ron Littlefield of Chattanooga had improperly contacted the judge earlier in the case, trying to influence her against The Pet Company. Not only that, but Mayor Littlefield admitted it and said that he often contacted judges during their cases! It seems like standard operating procedure in Chattanooga. Whatever the case, Judge Paty was recusing herself which meant that the entire case had to be thrown out. It would have to start at the beginning again and re-tried.
So, that’s where we are right now. Getting ready for Round Two.
If you care about my opinion, I think that The Pet Company certainly needed to clean up its act. From the testimony it sounds like they needed to improve their standards for cleanliness and many of their operating procedures. And there was no dispute that the compressor for their air conditioner was not functioning for 2-3 weeks. That should have been repaired quickly.
On the other hand, I think that McKamey certainly comes off looking very bad here. They seem to be completely unfamiliar with the operating procedures for pet stores. It is ridiculous to try to hold a pet store to the same standards that you would apply to animal care in someone’s home. I’m sure if I visited the McKamey Center I would find many things that I don’t approve of but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should cease to operate.
I think it’s very clear that McKamey was acting on a vendetta against The Pet Company because they are a pet store which sells puppies and other live animals. I think that’s inexcusable. Whether McKamey or any other animal control authority likes it or not, as long as it is legal to sell animals in pet stores (and it is legal), they should stick to carrying out their duties without trying to close legitimate businesses. There was no animal abuse at this pet store. There wasn’t any neglect. There were some conditions that needed to be improved. They could have given the store some written warnings and returned in a few days to see that the conditions were improved. This would most likely have taken care of the problems and saved the city of Chattanooga thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees, not to mention the $40,000 (plus) which McKamey is now trying to get back from the store. It would also have saved McKamey from (once again) looking foolish, not to mention so many city leaders from having little conniption fits in public.
As it is currently under Tennessee law, animal control authorities can seize animals and require that a bond be posted within 15 days. After that time, if no bond has been posted, they can do what they like with the animals. If you can’t come up with the security bond to pay for the care of the animals then you’re out of luck. Fortunately for The Pet Company, they have deep pockets, and a good attorney, so they can get their animals back. For most average citizens, they would never be able to come up with the kind of money it takes to post security for multiple animals. If you’re a breeder or if you operate a rescue, or if you’re a pet owner with several animals, and animal control executes a raid on you without just cause, if you can’t come up with that money, your animals are gone. The animal control authority can sell them, adopt them out or euthanize them as they wish.
I think what we need is a better system. If an animal control authority conducts a raid and it is shown to be improper then the victim should not have to bear any costs or expenses associated with the care of the animals, and any bond or security should be refunded. I think this would cut down on a lot of bogus raids. Animal control does need to be able to do its job when there is genuine animal abuse but in these cases where they are making up charges against law-abiding breeders, rescues and pet owners or carrying out vendettas, they need to be curtailed. They should not be free to operate and persecute people and force people to pay thousands of dollars and lose their animals without any consequences.
If an animal control authority actually has to stop and think, “Are we going to be stuck paying for the care of these animals ourselves? Is there real evidence of abuse here?” I think it would dramatically reduce the number of false raids on innocent people — and businesses. There is no excuse for raiding a pet store just because you don’t like the fact that they sell puppies. There needs to be some real evidence of abuse and neglect, not these made up charges as in the case of McKamey and The Pet Company.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment