Hoarding case highlights need for "cost of care" legislation, advocates say
Nearly 200 chihuahuas rescued from a house in Columbia County have been parceled out to shelters for placement and their owners are facing cruelty charges. The late-night rescue operation last week proved that the state, law enforcement, local rescue groups and shelters can work swiftly and efficiently to remove large numbers of animals from harm's way, get them basic care and send them on their way to permanent homes.
Hoarding case highlights need for "cost of care" legislation, advocates say
Amy Worden, Inquirer Staff Writer
UPDATE: Pennsylvania State Police have charged brothers Albert Ambrosia, 54, and Thomas Ambrosia, 59 of Benton with two counts of animal cruelty related to the seizure of 187 dogs on Friday. The charges stem from the poor conditions of two dogs: a Treeing Walker Coonhound found with two open, untreated pressure wounds on his legs and a long-haired chihuahua with a severely matted coat. Other dogs were noted with skin, eye and ear problems but veterinarians on the scene said they did not appear to rise to the level of cruelty, according to the police document.
The nearly 200 chihuahuas rescued from the house in Columbia County Friday have been parceled out to shelters for placement soon in permanent homes.
The late-night rescue operation last proved that the state, law enforcement, local rescue groups and shelters can work swiftly and efficiently to remove large numbers of animals from harm's way, get them basic care and send them on their way to adoption.
There are two fortunate aspects to this case that have sadly not been the case in other enforcement actions against hoarders, fake rescues, dog fighting rings and puppy mills in recent years.
a) the 185 chihuahuas (plus two larger dogs), despite living in cramped conditions, were not suffering from severe health problems.
b) the owners immediately forfeited the dogs to shelters.
However, the financial burden now shifts to the animal groups that can least afford it. The state listed 13 shelters - virtually all of them county or area SPCAs. We note no breed rescues were listed and we wonder what happened there. Where was the AKC during this breed-specific crisis?
We also note that the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area took in some of the dogs. This is the same shelter, you may recall, that for months last winter refused to take any dogs from the City of Harrisburg during a contract dispute. Some advocates wish the shelter had exhibited that same compassion when it came to city dogs - many of them pit bulls - that were abandoned on the streets during those bone-chilling winter nights. (Don't forget, it was the kind-hearted individuals working with the Central Pennsylvania Animal Alliance that stepped into the void and became the defacto "city shelter" for six months.)
Back to the chihuhuas. Most if not not all of the shelters who took them in are facing budget difficulties. Many were recipients of a state shelter grant program slashed in half by the Department of Agriculture this year and likely to be eliminated entirely next year because of the fast-depleting dog law account.
In local news reports and emails the shelters that took the animals have sent out pleas for donations to help care for the dogs. So it's clear that these are not deep-pocketed organizations. Nor do they likely have unused kennel space. (This, of course, raises the question of how many other dogs, urban dwellers like pit bulls, will be turned away, or worse, put down to make room for the adoptable purse dogs.
This mass hoarding case, advocates say, casts a spotlight on the need for legislation to hold pet owners charged with cruelty accountable when their animals are removed and cared for by cash-strapped non-profit groups. Years-long legal fights means an even higher burden on a shelter's budget.
The Pennsylvania SPCA, between 2007-2009 during the tenure of CEO Howard Nelson, raided some of the biggest and worst hoarders and puppy mill operators in the state. It spent hundreds of thousands to care for thousands of severely sick and injured animals. At the same time, they were forced to defend themselves from lawsuits from those same breeders and hoarders.
Without question those cases have had a chilling effect on the PSPCA's ability and willingness to go after the large scale hoarders and puppy mills though it remains the only "statewide" non-government group with the enforcement power and resources to conduct mass rescues.
Still while the PSPCA says it is committed to helping animals statewide, its record says otherwise. The group has all-but retreated to the confines of Philadelphia, prosecuting "safe cases" of dog fighting and those involving impovershed hoarders unlikely to sue.
The chihuahua case is just the latest to highlight a gaping hole in the law protecting animals and those who protect animals.
Scores of cases like these that occur in every county in Pennsylvania underscore the need for "cost of care" legislation, animal advocates say.
Under current law, courts can demand restitution only after a conviction, at which point of course lawbreakers are much harder to track down for payment.
At the same time adoptable animals end up warehoused in shelters while their owners file rounds of appeals. In one case in Franklin County four Huskies have lived at the Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter for two years as their twice convicted owners appeal their latest cruelty convictions.
A Senate bill (SB 1527), sponsored by Sen. Rich Alloway (R., Franklin) in whose district the Cumberland Valley shelter is located, would shift the financial burden of animal cruelty from municipalities and nonprofit shelters to "those responsible for the animals' suffering."
Rep. Brian Ellis (R., Butler) is seeking cosponsors for a companion bill in the state House which has not yet been introduced.
The bills, similar to those in law in 25 states including New York and North Carolina, would expedite the process for relinquishment of animals to shelters where they can be adopted, while at the same time mandate up-front payments from accused abusers who refuse to give up their animals and fight the charges.
Some advocates say the chihuahua case is a "textbook example" of the need for the legislation.
"It is critical in cruelty cases - particularly those involving large numbers of animals - that the owner agrees to either provide financial support for the ongoing care of the animals involved or forfeits them to animal welfare organizations that can place them elsewhere," said Marsha Perelman, a member of the state Dog Law Advisory Board.
"Pennsylvania needs to join the many other states which have laws requiring those charged with cruelty to make this choice, since without such laws municipalities, shelters, and national animal welfare organizations are forced to care for animals - sometimes for years - while cruelty cases make their way through the courts. Because in this instance the owner forfeited his animals, rescue organizations were immediately willing to step forward to help."
Insisting that a defendant, who has NOT been proven guilty pay the exorbitant amount of supposed "cost of care" is outrageous. It is also illegal if you read the Constitution. In fact, most of these seizures of property, and animals ARE private property, are unconstitutional. I want to know HOW a person whose animals were stolen, and whose animals were deemed 'healthy' by a veterinarian, and whose animals were 'obviously loved' and social, are charged with cruelty? If those animals were in such bad shape, they wouldn't be fit for adoption just 48 hours later. He violated the kennel license law, so charge him with that, but those animals were NOT cruelly treated. If long nails was 'cruelty', 90% of my clients are guilty. Hounds and other large dogs gt calluses on their elbows. I am rather confident that those are what is being referred to as "pressure sores". Better start locking up the owners of ALL large breeds that have frequent elbow calluses, like bloodhounds, Labradors, coonhounds, and just about ANY overweight dog. I also love how this site censors anyone who doesn't agree with the radical animal rights agenda. Bet THIS doesn't get printed either.— Canine Professional- WHO has 200, yup two hundred dogs? They were surrendered because the A.H.'s couldn't care for them. So, now the shelters pony up the bucks. Yes the former owners should pay.
And I hope, because you look at pets as "property" you don't have any.— greatdogz - If someone wants two hundred dogs as part of their property then more power to them. No one gets upset about farmers having 200 cows or chickens guess dogs are animals too. A buddy of mine was in korea doing his time in the army said he ate some real good dog there, so where is the problem are koreans less than us because they eat dogs or are dogs simply a lower life form than we make them out to be. All the animal activists make me wanna join PETA thats people eating tasty animals.The other day on facebook a photo of a giraffe being shot was going around and people where saying how sad that for $3800 this graceful animal could be shot, I commented yeah I know thats way too much per pound lol. Come on people there are starving humans to feed lets not violate human rights to save a dog cat or whatever property people are sopposedly abusing. ITS BULL!— snowfam
- It is clear that groups taking in seized dogs should be paid for the expenses incurred as a result of the seizure. The issue is how to do this fairly. The currently proposed laws are both inequitable and unconstitutional, at least as one federal court has held. SB1527, Senator Alloway's bill, contains provisions that a federal court in Kentucky held violative of the equal protection required by the Constitution. There are several significant problems with the proposed law: 1. Depriving someone of their property rights for failure to make payments prior to conviction cannot withstand court scrutiny. 2. Neither can not returning the money spent for care if the person is not convicted of the crime. In that case, the cost should be paid by the entity making the seizure. 3. Immunity from civil liability and damages for acts made in good faith goes too far, especially when coupled with the ability to euthanize an animal on the opinion of a single veterinarian. A negligent act can be done in good faith, causing irreparable harm. It should not be the general rule that private persons, as distinguished from public employees, are immune from lawsuit for their actions. A private organization, or its employees, that seizes an animal should not be immune from prosecution for its actions that cause civil or criminal harm. A reasonable statute can be drafted to compensate shelters for holding dogs for the state by providing the state with more funds to do what the olaw now permits them to do - this proposal is not reasonable.— Julian Prager
- A Humane Nation
- Animal Law Coalition
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animals & Politics
- Best Friends Animal Society
- Catster
- Dogster
- ohmidog!
- Paw Print Post
- Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
- Pet Watch New Jersey
- Pet-Abuse.com
- PetMD
- Terrierman
- The Bark
- Vetstreet
- WebMed/Pets
- zootoo
