The Truth About The Warren County Dog Raid

The Truth About The Warren County Dog Raid

Carlotta Cooper

Last week the property of Mrs. Wilma Jones in Warren County was raided by the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, working with the Animal Rescue Corps. They had a warrant and seized approximately 125 dogs and five birds. From the photos and video I’ve seen, the buildings where the animals were housed were in a run-down state, though the dogs themselves looked healthy. Since she possessed more than 19 intact female dogs apparently used for breeding, Mrs. Jones was required to have a state commercial breeder license, which she did not have. At this time, no charges have been filed against Mrs. Jones for anything. That includes animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect. A hearing is scheduled this week to determine what will become of the dogs. The Animal Rescue Corps wants to have custody of the dogs so they can distribute them to rescue groups and shelters, after having them spayed and neutered. The dogs would then be put up for “adoption,” or rather sold to people who want them as pets.

Those are the facts in this case, along with the important fact that the Animal Rescue Corps has estimated that they will spend up to $100,000 on this deployment and they have been asking for donations to cover their costs.

Are any of these facts in dispute? Oh, yes. Nearly all of them.

First of all, you might ask how a warrant was obtained so a raid could be executed on Mrs. Jones’s property. According to statements on the Warren County Humane Society Facebook page and in other news accounts, Ms. Kim Chambliss went undercover for three weeks, posing as a puppy buyer to gain access to Mrs. Jones’s property and meet with Mrs. Jones. Were her actions legal? Is any evidence she obtained admissible in court? That remains to be seen.

You might also ask why the Animal Rescue Corps, located in Washington DC, was brought into this case when there is a local humane society in Warren County. If there were legitimate reasons to think dogs were being abused or neglected in Warren County, why did the local humane society or animal control not take action? The Humane Society of the United States has also been active in Tennessee in the last 2-3 years. Why were they not contacted in this case? Or, if they were, why did they not choose to act?

The Animal Rescue Corps is, in fact, a new organization, but it is headed by someone who is well-known in rescue circles: Mr. Scotland Haisley. Unfortunately, Mr. Haisley is well-known for all the wrong reasons. His tactics have been described as “SWAT-team-like” when raiding dog breeders. He has previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Rescue League, and In Defense of Animals. Even Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS, described Haisley’s methods as “cowboy ways” since Haisley likes to kick in doors and wear a phony badge on occasion. Haisley seized 172 dogs from a breeder in South Dakota that a judge later ordered HSUS to return to the breeder. The breeder got his dogs back and is now suing. Before that, Haisley led a raid in Hawaii on a man who was trying to care for animals left by his dead wife. The owner brought a civil rights lawsuit against HSUS, the Hawaiian Humane Society and others who were involved in the raid.

I don’t think anyone should be too certain that any raid led by Scotlund Haisley will be held up in a court of law.

It’s true that Mrs. Jones did not have a commercial breeder license. It certainly sounds as though she did need one. However, that is not grounds for a raid or seizure. The commercial breeder law has a process in place for inspection, and for a breeder to have a length of time to come in compliance with meeting the standards for inspection, and for getting the license. At some point Mrs. Jones should have been, or would have been notified that she needed a commercial breeder license. She would have been inspected. At that point she would have had a certain amount of time to comply with the regulations in the act, and a certain amount of time to get the license. Or she would have had to remove some of her dogs to be under the limit of the law. But the commercial breeder act does not allow outside agencies, such as the Animal Rescue Corps, or undercover people, to take action against breeders. The Department of Health and its inspectors are currently inspecting breeders and issuing licenses. It simply takes time to visit every breeder in the state. It is also up to breeders who know they need a commercial breeder license to contact the Department and obtain one.

If Mrs. Jones is charged with anything at all and she chooses to try to fight the charges, it would mean that she faces literally thousands of dollars in costs. Not least of her costs would be the seizure bond for her dogs. These charges would be between $10 and $18 per day, per animal, and the money is due by 15 days after the defendant has been charged, depending on where the animals were held. For 125 dogs, that would mean Mrs. Jones would have to come up with $18,750 by day 15 if she intends to fight any charges, if we use the lowest figure of $10 per dog, per day. And that is just for the first 15 days. The bill would continue to rise the longer she has to wait for any trial. That’s why most dog breeders surrender their dogs, even if they fight the charges. Seizure bonds make it too costly to try to keep the animals, even when people are innocent. Coming on top of legal fees, few people can afford to pay these costs. Forfeiture and asset seizure bonds, which were changed in recent years to prosecute drug cases, have been used maliciously to force breeders to give up their animals.

It needs to be said here that Mrs. Jones is 72 years old (though different stories have put her age at 74 and at 80). She appears to live alone and have no family. She says she’s been breeding dogs for 30 years and that she loves her dogs very much. There’s really no reason to doubt her statements. Animal rescue volunteers may not like or approve of the way that Mrs. Jones keeps her dogs, and they may not like dog breeding in general, but it is possible to have different views of things. Commercial dog breeding is a legal activity. Mrs. Jones was breeding dogs, not running a meth lab. The buildings may have been unsightly but the dogs appeared to be in good condition. State law requires animals to have adequate food, water, and shelter and Mrs. Jones appears to have met those standards.

Finally, there is a larger issue at play here. That is the battle that is going on between those who see dogs as almost human pets and those who still see them as dogs, with a purpose. Animal rescuers often have very good motives. They would like to save every animal from anything they judge to be a harsh life. That includes being treated too much like a dog and from breeding situations. Dog breeders may love their dogs but they can also see that they have a utilitarian purpose. The present generation of dogs is needed to produce the next generation. Both groups like to place dogs in good homes. Dog breeders have been doing this for a very long time. In the last couple of decades, animal rescuers have been vying for those same pet homes with rescued animals, moving in on homes that once would have bought pets from breeders. In addition, animal rescuers have mounted a war against dog breeders by trying to convince the public that most pets come from substandard breeders, and telling people that they should “adopt, not shop.” There are plenty of great dogs that come from both sources. It’s unfortunate that this situation has turned into a war. In this case, Mrs. Jones may be one of its victims.

Too often lately, dogs are seized from breeders on phony or exaggerated charges (or no charges at all). When the breeder surrenders them because they can’t afford the exorbitant seizure bonds, the rescue group distributes the dogs to various shelters and rescues who turn around and sell the same dogs who were said to be in such terrible condition. In just a few days these allegedly “pitiful” dogs are somehow ready to be sold to the public, often for the same kind of prices the breeder would have charged. Miraculously, all of the alleged health problems are gone. The neglect is cured. Starving dogs are suddenly plump. It’s like magic how fast these pathetic dogs are suddenly ready to be “adopted” for a few hundred dollars when the money is going to a rescue group instead of to a breeder. And dogs that a few days before were said to have never known any human kindness are suddenly giving kisses and ready to play. Yeah, right. I’ve been breeding and showing dogs for almost 30 years and I can tell you that it takes a very long time to socialize an unsocialized dog. If a dog has really not had any social interaction, you can’t cure it in a week. In other words, the stories that are often told about dogs taken from breeders being “unsocialized” are bunk. The dogs are usually just scared when they are seized by strangers. Who wouldn’t be? If animal rescuers don’t know this, they don’t know much about dogs. If they do know it, and they mislead the press, then they are simply lying.

The bottomline, in more ways than one, is that rescues and shelters make money when dogs are seized from a breeder. There’s a reason why breeders refer to these raids as “stealing” dogs. Rescues and shelters turn around and sell the same dogs that breeders were selling, and can sell them for several hundred dollars per dog. The only difference from buying them from a breeder is that they are spayed/neutered, and people can feel morally superior about getting a “rescued” dog that probably didn’t need to be rescued from anything.

It’s also unfortunate that there are rescue groups who prey on the public’s generosity to push their own agenda. I think it’s very doubtful that it will actually take $100,000 to provide care for the dogs that were seized on Mrs. Jones’s property. Of course, the Animal Rescue Corps isn’t the only group that asks for money from the public. HSUS, PETA, the ASPCA, and other animal rights groups have their hand out all the time, using sad pictures of animals to try to motivate the public into giving them money. The problem is, the money is rarely used to actually help animals. Instead, it goes to lobbying, pension plans, and big salaries. Helping animals in need is a great thing to do. It’s too bad that’s not where your money goes. Instead of donating to a group with a headquarters in Washington DC, give your money to a local shelter or rescue. That’s the only way to really make sure you are helping animals that need it.