Update: In the 2008 legislative session, animal rights activists attempted to pass legislation that would allow for lawful entry without a search warrant. This provision would have given animal rights activists the right to enter your property without a law-enforcement official and seize anything they wanted without recourse to the property owner! Ultimately giving them police power.
---
"As far as I'm concerned, mine were stolen from me". That's what Mike Pettengill from Weaton Missouri said, (1) one of the owners of a horse seized in a recent raid. Guilty of at least four counts of animal abuse some of the facts surrounding the William Zobel case in Western Greene County may fit a pattern I have been watching for over two years now. Some animal rights activists have found a new and legal revenue stream, the seizure of high dollar animals under the pretence of abuse and neglect. For the record, I do not condone the abuse of animals in any way, and I am not attempting to prove innocence or guilt in any case listed in this report. In fact, if my proposed legislation were currently law it would not have had any impact on the outcome of the Zobel case.
The resounding theme I received in letters from people is "this can't happen to me" and "those people deserve it". Really? Ask Elaine Priest. On December 3rd 2000, The St Louis Humane Society Swooped in and took 18 horses from her ranch claiming they were malnourished. On January 7th 2001 Butler County Circuit Court Judge John Bloodworth ordered the horses returned and that Priest had not violated the Missouri Statutes. Instead of returning the horses immediately they slapped a $12,000 lien on the animals for transportation and housing, which is legal under the law. "They stole my horses and they stole my rights and left me without any options" Priest said (2). She was being held hostage to pay for their mistake. A ranch was raided in Northern Missouri in 1998 seizing some 40 horses and this fall, yet another ranch in the South Eastern part of the State. Just to name a few recent raids. Still don't think it can happen here?
These are not isolated cases. ABC News has also been tracking stories like this. In a story that aired June 3rd 2005, 20/20 news reporter John Stossel made reference to over 50 cases from New York to California where Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals confiscated animals and sold them, keeping the money. One of these stories was a New Jersey horse owner. Joe Stuebing was accused of inhumane treatment of his horses. They took his champion bloodline horses together reportedly worth more than $1 million. "They are a self-righteous group of people that are in it for money," said Stuebing (3).
I am not saying that Humane Societies do malicious acts. In fact they provide a very necessary service especially concerning the adoption of dogs and cats. All of our family pets have come from the Southwest Missouri Humane Society. However, a nationwide pattern is emerging out of the actions of a few overzealous agencies. For example, Lynda Williams ran a shelter for unwanted animals in Texas, according to the 20/20 reporter a second shelter the SPCA-TX accused Williams' shelter of being dirty and successfully took her healthy animals then sold them under the pretence of animal neglect (5) . High profile cases like these and others create the opportunity to play off of the public's compassion for the animals to raise money from the sale of the animals and financial contributions. The more successful these campaigns are the more likely they will become tools for financial gain. My bill address' preventative measures to help keep it from happing here.
How zealous are they? I recently interviewed a small group of concerned animal rights advocates. During the conversation I showed them photos of four dead horses. I explained that I took them one morning while visiting a horse breeders ranch in Southwest Missouri. Before I could even explain the situation, one of them, compassionately moved by the photos, demanded to know where this place was. I asked her why and she exclaimed, "With just those photos alone we could get a court order to take that jerks herd". Although the breeders 60+ horses would have been a good capture, that would have been bad news for the breeder. Those thoroughbreds were not only in perfect health, they had been killed the night before in the May 3rd 2003 tornado.
A second group wanted to raid a different horse owner's farm based on a photo of a skinny horse. That horse was a twenty five year old mare in good health and very loved by her owner.
This issue strikes a passion in people like I've never seen. Just the rumor that I was filing a bill that dealt with animal abuse opened the floodgate of e-mail and letters to the newspapers. Without any knowledge of the content of the bill, people Statewide immediately started trying to tie me to the defense of the Zobel case. My proposed bill actually protects ranchers from a pattern of events that truly threatens the large animal industry.
Earline Cole, ranch manager of the Longmeadow Rescue Ranch, was quoted as saying "Now we have clarification of the disposition law that permits abused animals to be confiscated" (4). And my guess is, it will be put to use. After sitting on the Judiciary committee for two years I learned a few things about law and court proceedings. Many cases are won based on what other judges have ruled in similar cases, its called case law. In this instance I agree with Earline Cole, the outcome of the of the Zobel case did open the door to additional seizure attempts. My fear is, under this precedent, activists could use this tool on marginal situations for publicity and fundraising schemes.
For example, many area farmers have a cow in their herd with a condition called cancer eye, or have had a cow die during calving. Both instances are a natural aspect of life yet, to an unknowledgeable passer-by, this sight could be enough to warrant the accusation of neglect. Under the current law the rancher's entire herd would be seized and it could be thirty days before they get a chance to argue their point in court and could be subject to huge caretaker fines.
As I stated earlier, I agree that if an animal's life is in imminent danger that animal should be rescued. I do not believe that huge fines and per diem cost should be imposed on people that are found to be not guilty of violating the law. With the ability to obtain a search warrant and seize animals comes a great responsibility. The taking of a person's personal property should only be done in extreme cases. And proper ownership of that property should be ascertained. Thus, the basis for my bill.
NOTE: The proposed changes affecting seizure in Section 578.018 are limited to "farm animals" as defined in Section 578.005 adding only, that the new language is to be applied to "farm animals" weighing more than fifty pounds. These changes do not affect dogs and cats.
Current law states that any duly authorized public health or law enforcement official may seek a warrant from a court allowing them to enter private property in order to inspect, care for, or impound neglected or abused animals. Notice, that animal rights activist groups acting alone have no police power and cannot legally enter your property and demand anything from you.
The next step under current law, is within approximately thirty days there will be a disposition hearing for the purpose of granting immediate disposition of the animals. It is during this period a person whose animals have been taken is assumed guilty by the courts and those seeking the warrant. The animals are seized and removed from the owner's property. The care and feeding of these animals is a real expense for the rescuers. In cases like I mentioned before where the owner is later found innocent, the off site care could become a financial burden thru the filing of liens against their personal property. Understanding that the expense is real and someone needs to be responsible for it raises some question as to how this situation could be better handled. My suggestion is to leave the animals in place under quarantine. Under this quarantine the animals become a ward of the State and the supervision of the animals is transferred to one of the 10 District Deputy State Veterinarians. The District Veterinarian will determine if the animals are in "imminent danger of loss of life" and if the animals are, then the existing law kicks in and those animals are immediately removed to receive proper care. The remaining animals that are in no immediate danger are to remain in place and under a directive for care from the District Veterinarian. Under the existing court order (warrant) the District Veterinarian will make sure that the provisions are met to correct the violation. Nothing in the bill prohibits the court from ordering an outside source to provide food or care. Likewise nothing prohibits the owner from selling the animals. That sell would, however, be under the supervision of the District Veterinarian.
If, within the thirty days, the owner could not correct the accused violations the court would be free to grant immediate disposition of the animals and if at any time the quarantined animals became in imminent danger the District Veterinarian could recommend they be removed.
As stated in the opening of this report some of the raids were on ranches that the accused is not the actual owner of all the animals. Under current law, the only notice that is required, is to a person residing on the property or where the seize took place. No effort to notify the actual owner is required. My bill stipulates that reasonable effort shall be made to find and notify, in writing, the actual owners of all the animals involved. Nothing in the bill prohibits the District Veterinarian from releasing animals to the rightful owners.
The entire bill language is as follows:
Section A. Section 578.018, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 578.018, to read as follows:
578.018. 1. Any duly authorized public health official or law enforcement official may seek a warrant from the appropriate court to enable such official to enter private property in order to inspect, care for, quarantine, or impound a neglected or abused animal. All requests for such warrants shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the probable cause to believe a violation of sections 578.005 to 578.023 has occurred. A person acting under the authority of a warrant shall:
(1) Be given a disposition hearing before the court through which the warrant was issued, within thirty days of the filing of the request for the purpose of granting immediate disposition of the animals impounded;
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, place impounded animals in the care or custody of a veterinarian, the appropriate animal control authority, or an animal shelter. If no appropriate veterinarian, animal control authority, or animal shelter is available, the animal shall not be impounded unless it is diseased or disabled beyond recovery for any useful purpose;
(3) Humanely kill any animal impounded if it is determined by a licensed veterinarian that the animal is diseased or disabled beyond recovery for any useful purpose;
(4) Not be liable for any necessary damage to property while acting under such warrant.
2. No farm animal, as defined in section 578.005 and weighing more than fifty pounds, shall be impounded until a district state veterinarian of the department of agriculture has examined the farm animal and has determined the farm animal to be in imminent danger of loss of life, or has determined that the condition or conditions deemed to be in violation of section 578.012 cannot reasonably be rectified before the disposition hearing described in subsection 1 of this section. Any such animal not impounded shall be quarantined by such state veterinarian. The district state veterinarian shall instruct the owner or owners of such animal in writing of the step or steps necessary to correct the condition or conditions deemed to be in violation of section 578.012. Under the existing warrant, the district state veterinarian shall make follow-up visits to verify the improvement of the condition or conditions outlined in the quarantine. If reasonable attempts to correct the violations have not occurred on or before the disposition hearing described in subsection 1 of this section, the court may order the farm animal to be impounded and disposed of in accordance with this section.
3. The owner or custodian or any person claiming an interest in any animal that has been impounded because of neglect or abuse may prevent disposition of the animal by posting bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care and keeping for at least thirty days, inclusive of the date on which the animal was taken into custody. Notwithstanding the fact that bond may be posted pursuant to this subsection, the authority having custody of the animal may humanely dispose of the animal at the end of the time for which expenses are covered by the bond or security, unless there is a court order prohibiting such disposition. Such order shall provide for a bond or other security in the amount necessary to protect the authority having custody of the animal from any cost of the care, keeping or disposal of the animal. The authority taking custody of an animal shall give notice in writing to the owner or owners of the provisions of this section by posting a copy of this section at the place where the animal was taken into custody and by delivering it to a person residing on the property. Diligent effort shall be made to notify in writing the owner or owners of farm animals believed to be owned by a person other than the caregiver.
4. The owner or custodian of any animal humanely killed pursuant to this section shall not be entitled to recover any damages related to nor the actual value of the animal if the animal was found by a licensed veterinarian to be diseased or disabled, or if the owner or custodian failed to post bond or security for the care, keeping and disposition of the animal after being notified of impoundment.
References:
(1) Associated Press article appearing online at: KansasCity.com, posted on Tue, Nov. 29, 2005
(2) Article appeared in the Daily American Republic of Poplar Bluff Missouri Thursday, February 15th, 2001 Author Jonathon Dawe.
(3) ABC News 20/20 Commentary by John Stossel. Printed article dated June 3rd, 2005
(4) Springfield News-Leader Article, written by: Wes Johnson appearing online at: KansasCity.com posted on Sat, Dec. 24, 2005.
(5) ABC News 20/20 response to SPCA, Printed article dated June 24th, 2005
Interesting reading:
Henneke Scale
Missouri Federation of Animals
Southwest Missouri Humane Society
Humane Society of Missouri
Longmeadow Rescue Ranch
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals- Texas (SPCA-TX)
Back To Issues Page