Group helps McKamey recover costs

I wish someone would help me out when I make bonehead mistakes.

Group helps McKamey recover costs

Staff Report

The McKamey Animal Center, out about $50,000 last year after a judge dismissed animal cruelty charges that city animal control officers brought against the Pet Company store in Hamilton Place mall, has gotten help from the ASPCA.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals earlier this month gave McKamey a $15,000 grant to help defray the center's cost for caring for the 84 animals taken from the store last summer after a Tennessee Department of Agriculture inspector found them without water and rolling around in their own feces in extreme heat.

The cases were dismissed by a special appointed judge after Chattanooga City Judge Sherry Paty declared a mistrial and recused herself in July, citing a July 1 email from Mayor Ron Littlefield urging her to not "leave McKamey holding the bag" for more than $40,000 in expenses.

A few days later, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture said Pet Company would be able to keep its state operating license after store officials agreed to comply with conditions laid out by the department.

Karen Walsh, executive director of the McKamey Animal Center, said in a prepared statement that she is grateful to the ASPCA, particularly for its recognition of the efforts of the center and assistance to help Chattanooga recoup some of the money spent protecting the animals involved in this highly publicized case.

"The cost of animal care during cases like this one often break animal welfare organizations, and many decide not to prosecute," she said.

You know, I'm glad that McKamey wasn't reimbursed for the full amount. I hope they do learn some kind of lesson from this experience. Namely, that they should not try to prosecute legal pet or animal businesses just because they don't like them on moral grounds. It is legal in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and elsewhere, to sell pets in pet stores, even though animal rights people (and that includes McKamey) don't like it. An animal control agency should not go on a mission to shut down legal businesses just because they don't approve of them. Nor should they try to exaggerate evidence or seize animals. There are still some judges who won't go along with those tactics.

Animal control agencies serve a valuable purpose in society but they need to operate within the law. And it's up to citizens to be watchful and make sure that the laws that are passed are reasonable and fair to all animal owners and businesses. We all want animals to be treated well, but we cannot allow animal owners or businesses to be railroaded by the animal rights movement.

The Memphis Vortex

God Hates The South

If you've been following the news much this spring then you probably know that God hates the South. I don't know what we've done to incur the wrath of the Almighty, but He's been showing some pretty unmistakable signs that He is not happy with those of us who live below the Mason-Dixon line. I say this because something like 170 tornadoes cut loose across the South on one day in April, killing over 300 people. Seven people died here in my county. As if that weren't enough, it's been followed by the worst flooding of the Mississippi River in at least 70 years, and in some places, ever. (Of course, the Mississippi does span more than just the South, so we will share our misery with some of our Midwestern friends.) And, to add insult to injury, the 13-year cicadas are coming out, like some kind of plague on the land.

So, you can see why I say that God doesn't seem to like us much right now.

Memphis Animal Shelter

In the midst of all these disasters, you may have missed some of the pet stories coming out of Memphis but there have been some whoppers. By far the biggest story is that of the Memphis Animal Shelter which is being reported daily by the YesBiscuit blog. If you're not familiar with the story then I encourage you to visit the YesBiscuit site right away and catch up. YesBiscuit is on a much-needed crusade to draw attention to some of the practices at the Memphis Animal Shelter, including their high euthanasia rate, way of treating the animals in their care, minimal work with rescues and efforts to get animals adopted, among other problems at the shelter. To say that the shelter director and city officials have been dismissive is putting it mildly. So please do check out YesBiscuit's blog and try to get involved.

Dog Relocation Program?

But there's other news from Memphis, some good and some not so good. Animal rescue groups have converged on the city to try to help owners and their animals affected by the flooding. Sounds great, right? And we're sure that most of these efforts are good-hearted and well-intentioned. We applaud all of the rescuers who are reaching out to help animal owners and their animals. Except, there are a few groups who may not have good intentions. There always seem to be one or two bad apples who can spoil the whole barrel.

ASPCA is on the ground in Memphis offering shelter for pets who have been displaced by flooding. According to news articles, they say that the owners will be able to pick them up when they're ready to go home again.

"People can bring their pets here regardless of their health or situation," said Joel Lopez, a former pacemaker sales representative from New York, who quit to work for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The shelter is operated with staff from the organizations and volunteers who use vacation days from jobs.

"This is the largest emergency-relief deployment in our history, dating back to 2007 when the program was launched," said Steve Pawlowski, communications manager for PetSmart Charities, which is using Memphis as a staging area for the flood disaster and for victims of the recent string of tornadoes.

The New York-based ASPCA is overseeing the operation.

The process for sheltering and rescuing the animals was born from the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when people were forced to abandon pets, many of which drowned.

It inspired rescue groups and the federal government to develop a plan that addressed animal welfare.

"We realized organizations needed to come together to create a unified operation, said Kathryn Destreza, ASPCA Southeast regional director. "There were so many lessons from Katrina. There wasn't even a people plan in place to deal with victims. Remember the Superdome? You can't imagine the chaos dealing with pets."

A federal law, created in 2006, requires states seeking Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance to accommodate pets and service animals in plans for evacuating residents facing disasters.

Rescue organizations formed the National Animal Rescue and Sheltering Coalition to create a unified effort.

"We're all pet people so we believe the least we can do is help relieve people who are under so much stress to know that their babies are safe here with us," said Debrah Schnackenberg, American Humane Association senior vice president for emergency services.

"We spoil them and treat them like they're our own until the owners are ready to reclaim them."

That sounds great, right? But what about this news release from the ASPCA that says they have formed a "national relocation program" for shelter animals?

Press Release

ASPCA Launches National Relocation Program for Shelter Animals

“Animal Relocation Initiative” Begins with Transport of Dogs, Cats from Regions Affected by Floods, Tornados

May 10,2011

ASPCA Media Contact

NEW YORK—The ASPCA^® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals^®) today announced the launch of its national Animal Relocation Initiative for shelter animals, which began with 46 dogs from shelters in eastern Arkansas that traveled westward over the weekend to make room for animals displaced by recent flooding, and continued on Monday with over 70 additional dogs from tornado-affected areas in Georgia and South Carolina going to shelters in the northeast. This morning, 15 dogs and 10 cats from shelters in a flood-affected region of Mississippi were loaded onto a trailer headed for West Palm Beach, Fla., and additional relocation efforts for animals in other affected areas are in the works.

The dogs and cats will be made available for adoption following their arrivals at the various destination shelters. Dogs from the initial relocation efforts traveled from Eastern Arkansas to shelters in Kansas and Colorado, and those from Georgia and South Carolina were sent to shelters in New York and New Jersey. The animals are being transported in climate controlled vehicles.

“Our new Animal Relocation Initiative will establish a national network that facilitates the transfer of animals and build a professional collective engaged in the issue of relocation,” said Ed Sayres, president and CEO of the ASPCA. “We also intend to develop flexible, scalable relocation programs that assure animals are moving the shortest distance possible.”

The ASPCA’s Animal Relocation Initiative moves animals from areas of oversupply to areas where there are few, if any, similar pets available in shelters for adoption. In these first cases, the ASPCA’s Field Investigation and Response Team has been deployed to areas where a large-scale disaster recovery effort is in progress, and the Animal Relocation Initiative is supporting those efforts, working with a network of agencies willing to receive and house animals that already exist in the community’s sheltering system.

“Our new program is all about supply and demand,” said Sandy Monterose, the ASPCA’s senior director of community outreach. “We will be exporting animals—safely, efficiently and humanely—from crowded shelters to regions where space is available. In this case, moving current shelter animals out of the affected area increases the ability of local organizations to help animals that need to be rescued or sheltered until they can be reunited with their families.

So, that seems a little confusing. Not to mention a trifle opportunistic. They are taking dogs in the tornado and flood areas and sending them to places where there is a demand for them. But, how do they know that some of the animals in the shelters weren't lost in the tornadoes and flooding? How do they know there aren't families looking for those dogs? And, if those dogs are sent to states 1000 miles away, how will their families ever find them? They won't even know where to look for them. Plus, the animals will have been adopted by other people. This sort of sounds like what happened with the Katrina dogs that HSUS "rescued" in Louisiana. There were all kinds of accusations at that time that HSUS took the dogs, saying that they would reunite them with their owners later, and then they sent the dogs to other states, adopted them out to other people, and their original owners couldn't find them. A few owners did track down their dogs and they had to go to court to get their dogs back.

(Gee, reading these Katrina stories, you think it's possible that HSUS doesn't really have much hands-on experience with animal care? Hmmm? What do you think? But how could that possibly be true? Isn't it HSUS that is always proposing legislation about animal care and telling people how to take care of animals? How odd. Aren't they the recognized "experts" when it comes to animals? Well, maybe not.)

So, you see why I think it's a little odd for the ASPCA to be "relocating" these dogs that they are "rescuing." They are kind of rescuing and relocating them against their will, or at least under false pretenses. And they aren't the only group going into tornado and flood areas in the South and plucking dogs out of shelters and even out of people's yards and sending them north and elsewhere. It's kind of despicable, but there are a lot of shelters in the north and other places which are taking these dogs and then adopting/selling them, using the big selling point that they are "Tornado Dogs!" to get people to pay money for them. Again, their families don't have any idea what has happened to these dogs. And shelters are making money off them. It's a pretty rotten business. It stinks.

Actually this "relocation" business raises another troubling question. If dogs from southern disaster areas are being moved to shelters in other parts of the country, what happens to the dogs in those shelters? Are they being killed to make room for the more financially desirable "Tornado Dogs!"? Sure, those shelters may be less crowded, but they probably aren't completely empty. Who wants to buy a plain old local dog when a shelter can pimp a dog with a sad story that's been through a flood? I just wonder how many dogs are being killed as part of this "dog relocation program"?

Trunking?

Oh, yeah, there's one more story from Memphis that I wanted to mention. This one pops up every year or two and it always makes me roll my eyes. Ever hear of "trunking"? Well, don't feel bad. Most people haven't. That's probably because it comes from the tortured and alarmist brains of some animal rights people and doesn't really exist except in their fantasies. The story always comes from the same newspaper in Memphis and cites the same two women as sources. According to these people "trunking" is the new craze in dog fighting whereby dogs are thrown into the trunk of some ne'er-do-well's car and, while this person drives around playing loud music, the dogs fight in the trunk ... er, yeah. I'm not making this up. It's a sport or activity without any spectators which really makes no sense to me. And, no one has ever actually seen this event happen. Nor is there any evidence that this event has ever happened. But these ladies claim that this is the hot new trend in dog fighting. Yeah, sure. So, again, no witnesses, no evidence, no one has ever seen it happen. But the story gets reported periodically. I really think this is some kind of urban legend perpetuated by a couple of animal rights fanatics. Seriously, if you google the term "trunking" the only stories relating to dog fighting (and there are hardly any at all) go right back to these two women in Memphis. I really think they made it up and I feel kind of sorry for them if that's the way their minds work.

So, if you're in Memphis, being chased by a tornado, and the river is rising to meet you, watch out for someone in a car with loud music playing because he could have dogs fighting in the trunk. Okay? Just be careful out there. Memphis is really in trouble.

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.

MSN in Memphis; Elsewhere in Tennessee?

Doing a little catching up here today. Memphis passed a law requiring mandatory spaying and neutering last week. Such a bad idea!

From Eyewitness News Memphis

http://tinyurl.com/2fm5r64

New Law Mandates Pets Be Sterilized

Reported by: Jeni DiPrizio

Email: jdiprizio@myeyewitnessnews.com

MEMPHIS, TN-- If you own a cat or dog in Memphis, you have to get your pet fixed. A new law requires the animals to be spayed or neutered.

“Just like all the problems in Memphis there is no magic wand that will act as a cure, but this is one step to create a better environment for animals and citizens,” said Memphis Animal Shelter Director, Matthew Pepper.

Every year the shelter euthanizes 16,000 animals. Pepper hopes the new law will reduce the number of pets put to sleep. He added, “I think over time, spay and neutering is the long term solution to the problems we face in this community.”

Under the law, almost all cats and dogs are required to get sterilized. Pet owners can pay a $200 license fee to avoid spay or neutering their pets. Guide dogs, police dogs and breeders are exempt from the new law. Veterinarians can also exempt dogs for health reasons.

Pet owner Donna Malone thinks the law is a bad idea. “Basically this law says we don’t trust you to do what you need to do with your pet,” said Malone.

Malone believes the new law is unfair to poor people who can’t afford the added cost of sterilizing their animals, “People will end up having to surrender their pets because they can’t afford what needs to be done.”

Memphis City Councilman, Shea Flinn said the new law is a secondary violation. Animal control officers won’t search for violators. Officers will only issue a citation in connection to another violation. “The veterinarian is not going to rat you out. If your dog is in its backyard behaving you are not going to notice the change,” said Flinn.

If a pet owner is ticketed for violating the law, it is a $50 fine.

I know that Donna Malone and others in Memphis have worked their tails off trying to convince the city council that MSN is a bad idea but this time it must have been like talking to a brick wall. MSN has never worked anywhere it's been tried. It increases owner turn-ins to shelters, which leads to more animals being euthanized. It causes more people to break other pet laws because they don't want their pets registered. It means that people won't vaccinate their pets for rabies and other diseases because they don't want to risk a trip to the vet or let someone know they haven't gotten their pet spayed or neutered. MSN leads to widespread disregard of all animal laws in a city and lower compliance. Many of the places that have tried it have revoked it. The ASPCA, the AVMA and virtually every other major animal organization opposes MSN. And, yet, people and clueless local politicians keep forcing it on people. Good luck, Memphis. I hope you and your pets and pet owners survive the next few months as MSN is implemented.

What's also bad is that when one city or town puts MSN into effect, it immediately sets off other places where clueless people want to have MSN. Case in point: east Tennessee.

If you go to the site make sure you read the comments. There are some good ones.

From VolunteerTV.com

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/104034969.html

Some hope for mandatory spay neuter law in East Tenn.

One Tennessee city is now telling pet owners, they have to spay and neuter their cats and dogs. The Memphis City Council approved the ordinance Tuesday, and some around here hope similar ordinances spread around East Tennessee.

Posted: 6:13 PM Sep 29, 2010

Reporter: Heather Haley

Email Address: heather.haley@wvlt-tv.com

Some hope for mandatory spay neuter law in East Tenn.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) -- One Tennessee city is now telling pet owners, they have to spay and neuter their cats and dogs.

The Memphis City Council approved the ordinance Tuesday, and some around here hope similar ordinances spread around East Tennessee.

Everyday Young-Williams Animal Shelter houses nearly 400 animals, hoping to find each one a home.

Executive Director, Tim Adams said, "If you're going to try to control or get a handle on the over-population problem in your community, truly the best way to do it is through aggressive spay neuter."

But last year, nearly 17,000 pets came into the shelter, "And 12,000 and some were euthanized," added Adams.

Memphis has the same battle with the pet population, so the City Council approved a mandatory spay neuter ordinance for dogs and cats.

President of the Board for the Humane Society of the Tennessee Valley, Pat Hackett said, "As a tax payer, I'd like to see something done instead of using our taxes to euthanize these animals. As a Veterinarian, I'd like to see these animals not be destroyed, and as the president of the Humane Society, I'd like to see us come up with a solution."

The Memphis City Council is providing exemptions. An owner can buy a $200 permit to keep their pet fertile, and if an animal is registered with an approved organization, such as the American Kennel Club, then they can skip spaying or neutering. Or, if a Veterinarian says the surgery would harm a pet.

Adams said, "It simply makes it a little more difficult for the back yard breeders, to do what they're doing. The responsible breeders, I'm sure if the law is passed, the only way it's passed, is if the responsible breeders have a way out."

Hackett said, "If it works in Memphis, it will probably spread to other cities."

Adams with Young-Williams Animal Center, encourages city and county officials around the region to look to Memphis as an example, and hopes similar laws will be discussed soon, but he says there needs to be exemptions for the responsible breeders, for it to pass.

I think the key point in this article is the statement that "if it works in Memphis, it will probably spread to other cities." Considering the way that Memphis has been running its animal control operation and its shelter, the chances of the city succeeding with mandatory spay neutering are zilch, even if it was a viable plan. Considering that MSN doesn't work anyway, I expect Memphis to fall flat on its face with MSN. Don't be surprised if the number of animals euthanized in Memphis shoots up in the next year — or if they start refusing to report their numbers, or make excuses.

As for having MSN in Knoxville or other parts of east Tennessee, know that there are people here who will fight it to their last breath. So far MSN has been defeated several times in Johnson City, Greeneville and other places where people have tried to launch it in the eastern part of the state. We've been preparing for Knoxville for some time, if necessary.

Animal Abuse Research

The following article originally appeared in the June 4, 2010 issue of DOG NEWS and is reprinted here by permission of the author.

Animal Abuse Research

Carlotta Cooper

For the past few weeks my computer screen has been covered with saved files with titles such as Social Work and the Law: Proceedings of the National Organization of Forensic Social Work; Animal Abuse and Youth Violence; and Animal Cruelty Prosecution: Opportunities for Early Response to Crime and Interpersonal Violence. I have literally dozens of these files saved, in various stages of reading. I can tell you that they don’t make pretty reading. I can only read so much before I have to stop and play with my puppies to get what I’ve been reading out of my head.

That’s one reason why it was very dismaying to read the March 26, 2010 issue of DOG NEWS, in particular the editorial “States Growing Tougher.” The editorial referred to “growing evidence” that people who abuse animals often go on to attack other humans and mentioned that states are increasing penalties for animal cruelty and “developing better methods for tracking offenders.” I’m afraid there are some problems with these seemingly straightforward statements.

After all the research I’ve been doing one thing is crystal clear: the “growing evidence” that links animal abuse to other forms of abuse is highly suspect. The same is true where animal hoarding is concerned. For instance, the first study of what we call today “hoarding” was conducted in New York City in 1981, with funding from the ASPCA. This would form the pattern for virtually all of the significant later studies on hoarding as well as the studies linking animal abuse to other forms of abuse. Studies on animal abuse, which are being used to convince lawmakers to make tougher laws, create animal abuse registries, and consider laws for “hoarders” are based on animal rights research.

One of the most significant studies of animal abuse and other forms of abuse was done by Randall Lockwood and his co-authors E. Deviney and J. Dickert in 1983: "The care of pets within child abusing families," International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4, 321-329. It just so happens that Dr. Lockwood became the Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States the following year, in 1984, a position that he held until 2005. He is currently a Senior Vice President for Anti-Cruelty Field Services for the ASPCA. Yes, he does have credentials in psychology with a doctorate in psychology from Washington University, but his animal rights beliefs have to make any research produced by him very questionable. At least, it should be questioned. And yet, his articles and books have become standards in the field of animal abuse.

Dr. Lockwood worked with humane societies and law enforcement agencies, as a psychologist and in his position as vice president of HSUS for more than 30 years, advising them on the “interactions” between animals and people. He testified in numerous trials involving so-called “cruelty to animals” — dogfighting cases, child abuse, domestic violence, even murder cases, if there were animals involved. He did everything possible to increase awareness of what he considered to be the link between animal abuse and other forms of violence. He continues to provide training to law enforcement, social services, mental health and veterinary professionals. And he has written several books on the subject of animal cruelty. (Information taken from his curriculum vitae and published biography.) In short, he’s been a very busy and successful man when it comes to promoting the idea that there is a link between animal abuse and other forms of violence.

However, just because Randall Lockwood, as vice president of HSUS, believes that animal abuse is linked to other forms of violence, doesn’t mean it’s true. It means that he’s had 30 years to sell this idea to the public and to convince the people in positions of authority — your local police department, child protective services, therapists and counselors, your vet — that it’s true. And now his books are being used to teach courses in animal abuse to other aspiring psychologists.

But Randall Lockwood is by no means the only researcher who has succeeded in putting forward animal rights beliefs to the public. HSUS, ASPCA and the Doris Day Animal League (the people who brought you PAWS and sued the USDA) have funded many similar studies. (Randour, M.L., Krinsk, S., & Wolf, J. (2002). AniCare Child: An Approach for the Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Animal Abuse. Printed and distributed by the Doris Day Animal Foundation and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Jory, B. & Randour, M.L. (1999). The AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse (adult version). Printed and distributed by the Doris Day Animal Foundation and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) They carefully choose researchers who share their ideology and fund their research. It’s not hard to make the research show the results that the researchers hope to find, especially in the field of social sciences. For instance, a study on animal abuse and violence in the home might turn out drastically different if it were conducted in Twiddlestix, Kentucky instead of New York or some other urban area with a high crime rate.

Of course, not all studies about animal abuse and violence can or should be dismissed. No one takes genuine animal abuse lightly. However, at the present time our legislatures are being influenced by people and studies which have been funded by animal rights groups for decades.

There are even some studies that disprove a direct link between animal abuse and violence if you would like to read them:

"The Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence and Other Forms of Antisocial Behavior," Arnold Arluke (Northeastern University), Jack Levin (Northeastern University), Carter Luke (Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Frank Ascione (Utah State University). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 14, No. 9, 963-975 (1999).

"The Linkage of Animal Abuse with Interpersonal Violence: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?" Heather Piper (Manchester Metropolitan University, England).

"Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students," Karla S. Miller and John F. Knutson,

(Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

One of the strongest thrusts of the animal rights movement in the last few years has been focused on “animal hoarding.” The Humane Society of the United States has shoveled tens of thousands of dollars to Tufts University and the HARC program (Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium), headed by Dr. Gary Patronek — who is a veterinarian, not a psychiatrist. HARC is doing “research” on hoarding, with the same goal that Dr. Lockwood had — to take the idea mainstream in the way that Dr. Lockwood succeeded in convincing the public that there is an easy-to-understand, one-to-one relationship between animal abuse and violence.

HARC is doing research and “educating” social service providers, public health officials, law enforcement, veterinarians and others on the “signs” of animal hoarding. You can bet that you will be reading more about “hoarding” and “hoarders” in your local newspapers and seeing them on your local TV news as this animal rights-led campaign expands — not because there is a sudden epidemic of hoarding, but because this is the latest AR trend. This is the latest way that HSUS has come up with to part animal owners from their animals and to discourage people from owning pets or breeding. There are currently two states with laws regarding animal hoarding (Hawaii and Illinois) but it’s only a matter of time before HSUS pushes for more laws in more states. HARC is even trying to have animal hoarding recognized as a mental illness or “conduct disorder” in the new edition of the DSM for mental health professionals.

Of course, the problem with hoarding from the perspective of an animal owner is that it could be any of us who have more than one animal. Hoarding is defined as basically keeping any number of animals more than someone else thinks you need. Those most often singled out as "hoarders" are elderly, alone and poor. In other words, they are unable to defend themselves if they are accused of being a hoarder.

(I recently read a blog post on an AR web site that thanked someone for posting an article about hoarding. The girl said she was always afraid she was going to become a hoarder but now she knew the signs so she would know what to watch for. She was completely serious. Isn’t that sad?)

Please consider the source when you hear that your legislature is considering tougher new laws for animal abuse, creating an “animal abuse registry” or thinking of making a law about “animal hoarding.” It’s very easy for research to be twisted and the research on animal abuse and violence has been manipulated by HSUS and animal rights groups for the last 30 years.