20/20 vs. SPCA factcheck -- ABC screwed the pooch

UPDATE 6/5/08

I met the producer of this piece at a conference, and after a conversation with her -- in which we still disagree over many of the fundamental issues raised below -- I did realize that there were a couple characterizations below that were not 100% fair. I've removed those and noted where the missing copy is with brackets and/or ellipses.

UPDATED 6/22/05

As time has gone by and more information has come out, I've formed my opinion of the validity of the 20/20 report. Unfortunately, no one from ABC has responded to my calls and emails, nor do they look to be likely to do so, given the experience of others folowing this story. So for now their report will have to stand on its own merits.

I have been in contact with Claire Schwarz, an attorney for the SPCA of Texas and hoped to speak to James Bias, the President of the organization. I didn't have my questions together before the weekend though, and he's out of town.

I still have enough from other sources to fill in most of the gaps. I'm going to leave outstanding questions I have in italics, and will edit to add the answers when and if I get responses.

In the continuation, you'll find a list of every fact about the Texas SPCA presented by 20/20 on its website and my assessment of its validity. (NJ folks will have to let their local upstart prelaunch news organization fend for them.) I'll also hit some of the general points of the investigation.

Lines in bold come from the ABC report as posted on their website. Again, italicized sections are questions that are still outstanding. I know that a lot of people have been crossposting my stuff to message boards, etc. In this case, I'd like to ask that you post only the link, as this won't really make sense without the formatting.

We spent a year investigating the SPCA, looking at 50 cases from New York to California.
When I speak to someone at ABC, I intend to request a list of those cases, their location and resolution. I will also ask if and how the NJ and Texas cases were substantially different from the other cases reviewed.

Some animal owners claimed that when they became overextended in caring for their animals, an SPCA accused them of neglect, confiscated their animals and sold them. The SPCAs then keep the money.
At best, this is an oversimplification. The statement leaves out the court proceedings that take place in between. The SPCA provides evidence to law enforcement officials, and that may, in some instances, be the way the cases come to the attention of the officials. But, a judge has to issue a warrant.

So, for the scheme alleged above to take place, there would have to be complicity from both a law enforcement official and a judge, at minimum. I can't imagine what motivation anyone in either of those two positions would have to engage in such a scheme. The traditional adage in conspiracy is to "follow the money." And absent hard evidence, there just isn't enough money at play here to justify a three-pronged conspiracy. Also consider that SPCA of Texas covers multiple counties and jurisdictions, which would make such a conspiracy prohibitively difficult.

To take that a step further, the SPCA of Texas has records showing that they made 2,308 investigations last year, leading to 13 seizures.

Sometimes the owners hire lawyers and file appeals, but they rarely win. Judges usually side with the SPCAs.
I'd like to find out how many times SPCA has gone in front of a judge and the judge has sided with the animal owner. The SPCA is on the winning side 90% of the time. Even if you buy the generalizations, they aren't dispositive. Does that mean that law enforcement only pursues the worst case?

Dave Garcia has confiscated thousands of animals in several states.
That fact, in and of itself proves neither virtue nor vice. It doesn't tell us how many of those animals were abused and in need of rescuing. It establishes nothing but the fact that Dave Garcia has been in this business for a while.

He heads rescue operations for the Dallas SPCA, one of the biggest such organizations in America.
This is a fact that ABC has been chastised on, but it is technically correct. To casual viewers, it made Garcia sound like the President of the organization, rather than Vice President of Operations/Rescue & Investigation. I have no quibble with ABC's characterization here.

Garcia led an effort to get Texas politicians to pass a law saying once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscations, an owner can't do anything about it.
Absolutely true. I'd like to hear Garcia and the SPCA's philosophy on the appeal issue, and whether they would support legislation to allow animal owners an appeal when their animal is seized.

Under Garcia's leadership, the Dallas SPCA has seen penalties against animal owners quadruple.
Again, misleading at best. The SPCA can not collect penalties from animal owners. This is a point debated endlessly on many message boards, but I have not seen one scrap of evidence to prove what would be a patently illegal practice. I've been unable to find any statistic supporting a four-fold increase in penalties at any level. It is possible that the SPCA has "seen" penalties charged in criminal case quadruple, especially since there are new animal abuse laws with stiffer penalties on the books, but I have not yet been able to find statistics to confirm or deny a claim of a penalty increase. And even if it exists, the money did not go to the SPCA.   

The SPCA invites television crews along on their raids confiscating animals. Such broadcasts spur the public to make big donations — a total of $6 million in 2003 to the Dallas SPCA — which helps pay Garcia's $80,000 annual salary.
The SPCA has had TV crews on raids, including crews from WFAA, the Belo-owned ABC affiliate that aired the 20/20 program in Dallas.

The mention of Garcia's salary, and connecting it to the SPCA's revenue, implies that it is a large amount of money. I don't buy that -- Having run businesses in the $4-6 million revenue range, I'd say that's about right for a senior manager. Further, one of the few posters on the ABC message board who bothered to bring some new information (as opposed to mindless screaming) to any side of this argument did comparable salary research and found:

The Director Field Services working in Dallas, TX PMSA, Texas now earns an average salary of $98,399. Half of those in this position would earn between $64,894 and $197,565 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from real, area specific, survey data.

When benefits and bonuses are added to this salary, the average total compensation for this position would be $125,095

One of those raids occurred at Renee Moore's dog kennel, with TV reporters stating 120 dogs lived in deplorable conditions.
True. (Unfortunately, WFAA's video link is dead.) Interestingly, the 20/20 report made no mention of this nugget (emphasis mine):

...The constable and SPCA got a court order and to seize the dogs and a horse, which was 400 pounds underweight.

The average weight of a horse is 1,000 pounds.

But Moore's dogs are show dogs.
Does this mean they are AKC registered? Is there evidence of this?

Some of them were thin, she said, because they were nursing large litters of puppies. Vets and breeders told us it can be normal for a dog's ribs to show when a dog is nursing lots of puppies.
See pictures on SPCA site. I have not seen anyone related to this case or with any evidence dispute the validity of these photos. I have also heard that dogs nursing large litters can be gaunt. However, at least one of the thin dogs pictured is a puppy and therefore clearly not nursing (at least as the nurse-er.)

As to the other pictures, this is where it gets sticky. I'm appalled by them. But we're city dwellers who completely spoil our dogs -- they swim in a pool every day; live inside; and usually sleep in the bed with us. By my standards, the dogs photographed are being abused.

BUT, not everyone treats dogs as "pets." I can certainly see that there are people who have dogs as livestock, to be raised and bought and sold. In that context, they are like pigs or chickens or cows on a farm. I imagine that most chickens and pigs and cows (all of which I will have consumed at meals today), live in conditions not much better than what we see here. Does that mean that chicken farms should be raided too, or that these sort of "dog farms" should also be perfectly legal? That's a matter of one's point of view and the current state of the law.

This, I think, is why there is such a divide of opinion on this matter. If you believe dogs are "pets," then the seizure is appropriate. If you believe dogs are farm animals and a product to be bought and sold, than it's potentially unfair, but legal under the current state of the law.

"Cruel treatment" is a matter of community standards. By my standards, these dogs were treated cruelly. I presume that by Renee Moore's standards, they were not. I don't know which of us is right, but I suspect that mainstream opinion would be that they were not being treated well.

To be clear, this is not an issue of being a breeder versus a pet owner. We got our younger dog from a breeder who had an impeccable kennel. I'd board my dogs there any time. Heck-- I'd sleep there.

Another thing I keep coming back to (emphasis mine):

2,308 investigations.
13 seizures.

Admittedly, the logic here is not airtight, but I look at those numbers, and they feel right-- if not skewed towards fewer seizures than I would expect. That says that less than half a percent of the people formally suspected of mistreating their animals see their animals seized. Does this prove that Renee's dogs should have been seized? No. But it really belies the idea of a seizure program run amok.

Take it a step further:

Of the 11,507 animals seen during investigations, a total of 1,098 animals—or nine percent--were removed by court order.

So, .5% of the cases meant 9% of the animals. You mean that those with more animals, took poorer care of them? I buy it.

But the SPCA took custody of all of Renee's dogs, including award-winners — worth up to $600 each.
Out of curiosity, I'd like to see a list of the awards won, and what evidence, outside of Renee's statements there is to support the value of the dogs. However, this point is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. If the dog was cruelly treated, and was to be seized under the law, its value and pedigree are irrelevant. If the dog was properly treated, and seized unreasonably, the value is still irrelevant.

After the radio, her vet wrote that while "housing and sanitation needed improvement" and suggested a cutback in the number of animals, he also said "Moore does care about and care for her animals no starvation was evident."
That may be, but the opinion of an independent vet would be more credible. The vet may well be giving his honest opinion, but there is an appearence of potential bias here. If Moore was taking proper care of her animals, she had to be a pretty good client for that vet.

A judge upheld the confiscation.
True. The case went to US District Court.

The Moore's court case was:
Renee Moore, Randall Moore, and Moore's Precious Puppies v. Tracey Garner et al., CA6: 04CV079, U.S. District Court, EDTx, Tyler

Tracey Garner is Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Place 1, Van Zandt County, Texas. And neither the SPCA nor David Garcia appears in the "et al." Claire Schwarz tells me that SPCA and Moore were named in this suit, although they don't appear in the Pacer listing.

Download PacerMoore.doc

Unable to afford a lawyer, Renee wrote her own lawsuit charging the SPCA with stealing, but the suit was dismissed.
This is unfortunate. Had she been able to afford a lawyer, that lawyer almost certainly would have told her that she was suing the wrong party. Regardless of the SPCA's motivations here, they were clearly within the law.

Renee's livelihood was destroyed. She and her husband were forced to sell their home and move into a trailer.
There are two ways of looking at this -- One is that the seizure was legal and justified, and that the consequences to the Moores are irrelevant to the decision. If my livelihood is based on producing a news product, and I do something illegal that causes that company to go out of business, then I have no one to blame but myself.

The other way to look at it is that Renee was adequately caring for her animals and they shouldn't have been taken. That's a matter to be addressed in the legislature and the judiciary. But not with the SPCA.

Garcia didn't know that our cameraman was a veterinarian, Dr. Gaylon TeSlaa.
I'm going to start far afield here, so follow me for a bit. It eventually gets to "the sting":

Claire Schwarz, attorney for the SPCA, told me that 20/20 got the SPCA of Texas to agree to the filmed raid because they portrayed their investigation as an expose on "puppy mills." The SPCA's site seems to indicate the same.

I intend to ask ABC about this if someone returns my call or emails. While I certainly wouldn't have expected them to say "We're doing an expose' on you -- mind if we film?," IF the SPCA's characterization is correct, this is clearly dirty pool on the part of ABC.

Then, there's Dr. TeSlaa. I completely reject any arguments that he was unqualified to assess the well-being of the animals because he is not licensed in Texas. An American vet is an American vet.

Much has been made on message boards about his Desperate Housewives-meets ER-meets The Practice television treatment and pilot screenplay. I know only a little about television, but from what I do, it is preposterous to think that a news program producer could do anything to help sell a fictional screenplay at the network. I don't think anyone involved is dumb enough to believe it could. So that's a red herring.

Dr. TeSlaa has not responded to any of my emails since Sunday.

The other prominent conspiracy theory floating around the internet goes like this: The segment producer  is allegedly in league with folks who breed dogs for a living (pergoratively called "puppy milers.") She supposedly worked with them to get this report produced.

There is also unsubstantiated scuttlebutt that the story was being challenged by ABC brass and that the producer had to fight very hard to get the segment on air.

Evidence presented for this theory amounts to this email being widely circulated around the Internet:

"This was sent to me by the lady who
instigated the 20/20 report on confiscations
of animals, including raids and thefts by
Dave Garcia and the SPCA in Texas. Please take a
minute to write, if it is only a few short
sentences telling ABC that John Stossel
did an excellent job of reporting the truth.
It is our chance to take the initiative for a
change. PLEASE write immediately!

Thank you,

Karen Strange
MoFED

Subject: We have 1 wk to ride the tidal wave.
We blindsided the ARs. Let's go get them!


We have to write letters. Snail mail.
That's what will get 20/20 to do more follow
ups. We are trying to put one together right
now to air in 6 months or so. The Executives
are impressed by SNAIL MAIL. Please get this
address out and ask everyone on
every list to write.

John Stossel
% ABC - 20/20
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, New York 10023

Ask them to thank John, ABC and the
producer for RISKING her life to go
up against these Domestic Terrorists and
expose them. She needs a larger budget to do
the next story. She had to carry the camera
along with the vet having a camera.
That's wrong. It was a great piece, but
could have been so much better if she'd had a
larger budget.

Go to www.abcnews.com and read and write
on the message board for John Stossel. It's
unbelievable. There's over 40
pages already. The ARs are trying to get him
fired. They need to be put in their place.
When you get to the website Click 20/20 at
the top Then Click John Stossel Message
Board. You have to register to write o= n it.

We have one week to ride this tidal wave
and get our side of the story out to the
State legislators and politicians. So far
we've Blindsided the ARs. They never even
suspected this. We did not promote just for
that reason. So NOW WE NEED
EVERYONE"S help please. Also, write to Orin
Hatch at the Senate Judiciary Committee and
demand these organizations have
their non profit 501(c)3 status yanked for
Domestic Terrorism.

Senator Orin Hatch
Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington D.C.

Call the Texas State Assembly, the
Governor's office as well as ours in
California with Outrage or whateer state you
are in!

Go for it this is our chance to make change.
We've fired the first round. We have to
organize and work together. I can't do it
all by
myself.

Marge"

I emailed Karen Strange to see if the email was real, and if she could put me in touch with "Marge." This is the response I received:

Hello Mike,

 

I will forward your request to Marge and if she wishes, she may contact you.

 

I read the article on the website. Very interesting. The root of this problem has been brewing for many years and will not be solved in our lifetime. The animal rights versus animal owner wars are heating up, and for once, the 20/20 segment exposed what is happening and gave our side the advantage, if only for a short time. The issue of taking one's animals without just compensation was solved by hanging in the old days. In modern times, it is rewarded and the owner has no Constitutional rights. Somewhere along the line, legislators have allowed laws to be written that the common man cannot afford to challenge in a court of law. That is not how it should be. Theft in the name of rescue has became a national plague and our side is fighting back.

 

Thank you for your interest in this important issue.

 

Karen Strange, President & Registered Lobbyist

MoFed

www.mofed.org

I have not heard from "Marge."

The only bit of evidence I see that remotely supports such theories is that online message board postings that make it clear that groups who were not directly involved in the story, but were sympathetic to its final tone were aware of it more than a month ago, and thought that it was to air on several different occasions before it did.

(A side note: In an earlier post, I referenced the above message board. It has existed since September 2004 and is dedicated to the activities of Dave Garcia. Since I linked to it,  it has gone silent. A few days later, the group was removed from Yahoo!)

I intend to ask ABC about this whenever a contact is made. But absent any evidence, I find the theories as a whole VERY far-fetched. The producer in question is a seasoned investigative producer whose career goes back to early days on Walter Cronkite's staff. I would be very surprised if someone like her would stake a pretty celebrated career on the agenda of an interest group that surrounded dog breeding. Not impossible, but frankly bloody unlikely.

But, nothing gives creedence to conspiracy like silence and evasion. I emailed the producer on Tuesday afternoon with questions. Getting no response, I re-sent the email with a read receipt on Thursday. I got the following response that night (number edited):

Hi, Mike...I stopped in the office tonight and received your messages.  I've been out on personal matters and won't be back until Tuesday.  In the meantime, please contact our press person Jeffrey Schneider at 212-xxx-xxxx regarding your request.
 
Thanks so much for your interest,
 

A common response, based on an article on Best Friends News:

So we called 20/20 ourselves, with a few questions for them, and reached the producer of the segment ... She had a one-sentence reply for us:

“I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO TALK TO THE MEDIA.”   

One can only wonder what kind of a field day [she] and Stossel would have if the SPCA of Texas had said that to them!   

[She] did refer us to Jeffrey Schneider in their public relations department, but his assistant transferred us to Alyssa Apple, a publicist. Apple replied that she had to refer it all back to the producer ... and could we send the questions in an e-mail. We are still waiting for a response.

I got the same runaround by calling Jeffrey, except that I left Alyssa a voicemail which was not returned. Although it seems that she would have told me to do, which was to email my questions to to the producer.

Still, I chalk this up to either fear of litigation or big-media arrogance, not conspiracy. Unless someone coughs up some better evidence.

So the question remains, if you buy the rest of this, why the sting? My early guess (and it's nothing but a guess) is the most obvious -- ratings via shock. My second guess is that the 20/20 staff thought they were really onto something scandalous but didn't have or take the time to get or refute an airtight story.

Early one morning last September, "20/20" accompanied Garcia as he went with a police officer to a Justice of the Peace to get the warrant needed to raid a dog kennel.
Another way to write the same sentence: "Early one morning last September, "20/20" accompanied a police officer as he went with Garcia to a Justice of the Peace to get the warrant needed to raid a dog kennel."

Both sentences are true. They give very different ideas about who's driving the car.

He claimed the owner didn't provide adequate food, water and shelter, and showed photos of what he said were filthy kennels.
Here's some photos.

After a brief informal hearing, Garcia got permission to raid, which meant he and an armed police officer could go to the kennel without any warning.
Technically, Garcia was a witness in the case, and a vendor providing rescue services. As to warning, Schwarz says:

Further, Deputy Anderson reports that he made a visit to the Chennault residence some time prior to the September 7, 2004 investigation and he counseled Chennault on the poor condition of her animals. Even though Chennault participated in the 2004 case, she is still the subject of complaints. The Hopkins County Sheriff’s office reports that it investigated Chennault on May 31, 2005 and reported that she has approximately 75 to 100 dogs on the property and that they are in poor condition. The Hopkins County Attorney reports she has recently received numerous complaints regarding Chennault. 

Garcia told us to expect to see animals that were urine soaked and fecal stained. "20/20" didn't see that.
One explanation could be that the situation wasn't as bad as Garcia claimed. Schwarz has another:

It is important to note that at the time of the investigation, some 70 dogs were present at the Chennault residence while at the time of the seizure approximately four days later, only 24 dogs were present. It can be reasonably inferred that Chennault removed some 46 dogs to some other location during this time period. TeSlaa suggests this by his reference to his visit to Chenault’s mother’s house where presumably Chennault housed the other 46 dogs. 

TeSlaa said, while there was some neglect because the owner had been away for four days, it was correctable. Since her being away was an unusual event, he saw no cruelty and certainly no reason to confiscate the dogs. But Garcia saw cruelty and said the dogs needed to be saved.
Based on the above, it's clear that having had warning, Chennault (whose name I'd been misspelling, picking up from postings elsewhere) had made some effort to clean up. So TeSlaa's assessment may well have been accurate. But the warrant was based on the evidence from four days prior.

Let me make a semi-clumsy analogy: Someone sees ten pounds of marijuana in your living room. And on that basis, a search warrant is issued. Just because there is only one pound left when the cops arrive doesn't mean that you're going to get away clean.

Finally, there is no explanation of how being away was "an unusual event." It may well have been. But I can't glean that from the 20/20 segment.

"Under Texas state law, these animals have been cruelly treated. The definition of cruelly treated is having to live in your own feces, unsanitary conditions, no food or water," said Garcia.
To be literal, the definition is:

"tortured, seriously overworked, unreasonably abandoned, unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter, cruelly confined, or caused to fight with another animal."

But when people keep animals, there's routinely feces found in the cages.  "That's part of having an animal," said TeSlaa.
Fair enough. But that doesn't address "unreasonably abandoned, unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter, cruelly confined..."

After raiding her kennel, Garcia took the dogs to the SPCA where the workers cited problems like fleas and mange. Not that the technicians are experts. In fact, our vet was the only veterinarian in sight. "These pets were not abused. They were not in poor health. None of them were in life-threatening conditions," said TeSlaa.
Again, TeSlaa's opinion here is very likely valid, considering that Chennault had four days to clean up and move dogs to another location.

As far as technicians' opinions, all I can offer is my own experience taking two dogs and two cats to our local vet. We're on a first-name basis with the techs and they're quite knowledgable. If one of them told me we were dealing with fleas or mange, I'd believe them.It's like a nurse saying "Yep, you've probably got the flu." And by my standards, untreated fleas or mange mean an irresponsible owner.

When I mentioned there was no vet there during the raid, Garcia replied: "We had vets there." 

But he didn't. The Texas SPCA later e-mailed us admitting that it didn't, but said in this case that vets weren't needed.
The SPCA hasn't disputed this fact.  What does this prove? Not that the SPCA is wrongfully seizing animals. It's a mistake -- the only clear one I see on the SPCA's part here. In fact, at worst, I'd chalk it up as a little white lie  .. . I would like to hear Garcia's explanation, though.

Chennault hired a lawyer and tried to get her animals back, but the court gave her only two hours to prepare her case.
This is patently false. Schwarz's answer, which I've verified:

The Warrant for Animal Seizure clearly sets out the date of the hearing on September 16, 2004, 5 days after the warrant was served. Chennault, represented by her counsel, J. Douglas Froneberger and Ruth Lewman, appeared at the hearing.  After reviewing the investigative evidence, including a videotape, Chennault and her attorneys agreed to enter into an order whereby Chennault surrendered her dogs. No criminal charges were filed against Chennault, no monetary damages were assessed, and no findings or admission of liability or wrongdoing were adjudicated or found. At no time has the SPCA of Texas been aware of any formal charges or claims by Chennault that her rights to due process were violated.

She was advised to settle and give her dogs to the SPCA. She did.
Advised by whom? Her lawyer?

He said he dismisses most complaints without any confiscation.  Garcia said, "It's about the welfare of an animal."
Here's the part 20/20 left out (emphasis mine): 

2,308 investigations.
13 seizures.

Tell that to the 50 people we talked to who lost animals to Garcia and other SPCAs.
50 out of how many investigations? What were the conditions of those animals?

Joe Stuebing is fortunate that he doesn't keep his horses in Texas, where he would be under the thumb of the Texas no-appeal rule Garcia lobbied for.
I'll agree with this one. Garcia advocated the no-appeal law. And I disagree with it. And I'm writing to my legislators to urge a change in that law. But I can't knock Garcia and law enforcement officials for following it.

In Texas, Moore could not appeal, and she said she'll never get over what Garcia and the SPCA did to her.

"I was a dog breeder.  I was a dog shower," said Moore.  "My dogs were my life."
My dogs are like my children. Here's a picture of my dogs:

Here's a picture of Pam Chennault's:

 

Did I get to hand-pick these pictures to make my point? Yeah. Could someone have gotten a nasty picture of my younger dog's anal gland absess that cropped up a few weeks ago before we spent $700 on surgery and medicine to rectify it, and used it to shock and awe? I suppose they could.

But that's exactly what 20/20 did, while accusing the SPCA of the very same thing.

Is the SPCA a perfect organization? No. There's no such thing. Did they deserve the shellacking they got on ABC? Absolutely not.

Interestingly, ABC leaves mention of the Willams case off their website. Perhaps that's because it had the most directly verifiable falsehood (emphasis mine):

Garcia took all of her animals and charged her $6,000 for vet and boarding fees.

Until I see a receipt and criminal fraud charges, I say "poppycock."

---

If ABC can't provide evidence counter to the above, then I have to ask why they went after the SPCA. Unless they provide a credible answer, we'll never really know. I doubt that it was a conspiracy -- more likely laziness, lack of resources, carelessness or a ratings grab.

And in a way, isn't that worse? I'd like to know the impact of this shellacking on the SPCA's donations and services. If my dog is lost and winds up in an SPCA shelter, will it get a shorter time before euthanization because of a lack of funds?

The ABC web site says of John Stossel:

"The most consistently thought-provoking TV reporter of our time" said the Dallas Morning News,Orlando Sentinel said he "has the gift for entertaining while saying something profound."

Tell that to the charitable rescue organization you've wrongly damaged and to the animals who will ultimately suffer.

Comments

[Bruce]

Wow....Kickass job....

[Stellaluna]

Awesome, simply awesome. I am speechless.

I'm glad to see someone values the truth out there. Keep up the good work!

[dogowner]

I. ...Let me make a semi-clumsy analogy: Someone sees ten pounds of marijuana in your living room....

Obviously, one cannot expect an objective report from someone who compares dog breeding to marijuana possession! Actually the author of this blog openly admits bias:

...Did I get to hand-pick these pictures to make my point? Yeah. Could someone have gotten a nasty picture of my younger dog's anal gland absess that cropped up a few weeks ago before we spent $700 on surgery and medicine to rectify it, and used it to shock and awe? I suppose they could....

II. Garcia led an effort to get Texas politicians to pass a law saying once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscations, an owner can't do anything about it.- Absolutely true. I'd like to hear Garcia and the SPCA's philosophy on the appeal issue, and whether they would support legislation to allow animal owners an appeal when their animal is seized.

So it is true - there is NO APPEAL.

III. "These pets were not abused. They were not in poor health. None of them were in life-threatening conditions," said TeSlaa. - Again, TeSlaa's opinion here is very likely valid

Animals were NOT ABUSED.

IV. When I mentioned there was no vet there during the raid, Garcia replied: "We had vets there." But he didn't. The Texas SPCA later e-mailed us admitting that it didn't, but said in this case that vets weren't needed. - The SPCA hasn't disputed this fact.

So, Garsia did LIE on national TV.

To summarize, I stand by my conclusions:
1) 20/20 report was correct: Animal owners cannot appeal a seizure.
2) 20/20 report was correct: Dogs shown in the 20/20 segment were not abused.
3) 20/20 report was correct: Garsia lied on national TV.

So I still think that the law in Texas must be changed and Garsia must be fired.

[Mike Orren]

Not going to bother responding to this guy-- just read my piece with the stuff he edited out.

And for the record, I personally disagree with our country's marijuana laws too. That's why I made the analogy.

[dogowner]

Dear Mike,

Can you refute any of the following statements:

1)Animal owners cannot appeal a seizure.
2)As shown on the 20/20 report, the dogs were not abused.
3)Garsia lied on National TV (about an SPCA vet being present on the raid).

By the way, your marijuana analogy is not valid - unlike animal owners, drug offenders do have the right to APPEAL.

[Mike Orren]

"Dogowner":

1. Obviously I agree with that statement. It's all over my post. And I intend to do something about it by lobbying for a change in the law. That doesn't mean that the SPCA is wrongly seizing animals. The problem is the law, not the instrument of the law.

2. I agree with number two, but not in the limited context you present. That's part of how ABC badly skewed the report. Chennault clearly cleaned up in the four days between investigation and execution of the warrant.

3. I don't know who this Garsia person you keep talking about is. But I can't say for sure whether Garcia lied or thought there was a vet there and had to recant because he was wrong. Once I hear back from the SPCA on this point, I'll update the post.

But even if he did lie about that particular thing, it doesn't prove anything else.

Can you refute that ABC "lied" about Williams paying the SPCA $6,000? Or was that an honest mistake aired on national television?

4. The marijuana analogy had nothing to do with appeals, which I suspect you realize. It had to do with point #2: There was hard evidence of 70 animals in squalid conditions and by the time they came back for the raid, more than 40 animals (presumably those in worse shape) had been taken off site.

[dogowner]

Mike,

1) History if full of examples when people who did Very Bad Things justified their actions by saying "I just followed the law". A certain international legal precedent established in 1945-1949 proved that this kind of justification does not hold water.

2)If she did clean her place up, then she was no longer in violation of the Texas anti-cruelty law. Why did they confiscate her animal anyway? (see #4 as well)

3)Garsia was the guy interviewed by 20/20 and as far as I remember he made several statements that disagreed with the facts. The statement about the vet was one of them. He also said that there was no food in the kennel during the raid, but the 20/20 footage explicitly showed that not to be true. Anyway, let's just mark the statements "Garsia lied about the vet" and "Williams charged $6K by the SPCA" as "pending discovery of further evidence" and move on. These are relatively minor issues compared to the other items on the list.

4)There is a VERY important difference between dogs and marijuana. Unlike marijuana possession, dog ownership is NOT illegal per se. So, if a person had 10lbs of marijuana and decided to give 1lb to nine friends, then all ten of you are VIOLATING anti-drug law. Now, let's suppose that you had 10 dogs living in less than ideal conditions and, after you had been warned by your local SPCA, you decided to rectify the situation by giving away dogs to your friends. Now, unless your friends keep their dogs in unsatisfactory conditions and deprive them of shelter, food, and water, NEITHER you NOR your friends are any longer in violation of the anti-cruelty stature. -- This is where your analogy breaks down.

[dogowner]

Arrgh, why is there no "edit" button on this board? : stature --> statute, her animal --> her animals, etc...

[Bruce]

And like "garsia"--> "Garcia" perhaps?

[Ben Nise]

Mike --

One odd thing about the 20/20 broadcast was the implication that rescue groups are somehow profiting from confiscated dogs -- and that there somehow exists an economic motivation to go out and “steal” dogs from breeders.

Considering the virtually limitless supply of abandoned pets left in shelters and on roadsides, there really is no motivation to go out and “steal” anybody’s pet. The $150 to $200 adoption fee usually charged by rescue groups does not fully cover the costs of vet care, shots, spay/neuter, tags, foster care, and program administration. As any rescue group’s 501c3 statement would attest to, most income is from donations.

The idea that one could profit from confiscating dogs is about as ridiculous as the idea that someone could profit from the running a charity soup kitchen or food bank.

Anyway, thank you again for your diligence in tracking down the facts of this story. After seeing what you have accomplished in blog form, I am really forward to the launching of the Pegasus News.

[dogowner]

>> And like "garsia"--> "Garcia" perhaps?

You got it! :)

[Bruce]

That "whooshing" sound is of someone not getting it.

[Bill Zardus]

The part that I found mind boggling was defending the poor
white trash running these puppy mills by saying:
"Some of the dogs confiscated seemed perfectly healthy !"

Are we supposed to be impresssed that not all of the dogs
were starving and/or sick ????

If animal control goes in and sees a very significant
number of sick dogs, should they just take the ones
currently sick and wait for the balance to suffer the same fate ??

John Stossel is a useless piece of garbage and he was making
more sense with his report that "Global warming is a
bunch of nonsense."

I stopped paying attention to that nitwit after his global
warming report, which was many years ago.

Bill Zardus

http://profiles.yahoo.com/ccnjdogpark <-- 2 headed monster
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dogpark-National-News/

[Kaya Genek]

i'd have to say you did a great job with this...

after seeing tons of stuff just like what 20/20 showed on Animal Planet shows like Animal Cops - Detroit, and Animal Cops - Houston just to name a few, and from what i know from school to be able to run a ferret shealter, all the animals taking away where taking away for good couses.

S.P.C.A'S are non Profit which means they dont get money for what they do... so if where to feather think that and dog that was up for adotison for $150. the moeny for that would not even pay for alting the dog, let a lone pay for the food it eats. i have interned at vets and shealters like the S.P.C.A for 3 years now. and i have seen some animals in really bad shape.. i think that if the above posters have seen half of the stuff i have seen from my time with the S.P.C.A and the few vets i went to they would think differntly of this.

i am sorry if there is really mis spelled words in this post... due to my learing diabilaty i spell the way words sound. and if i had more time as of now to run this throw MS word i would... but i need to go feed a wild baby bird that i an taking care of as of now.

[Diane Falbe]

Hi
This is another story about the SPCA of Texas. SPCA of Texas
has been seizing a bunch of innocent peoples animals for profit.
Dave Garcia of Dallas SPCA has increased seizures and fines in Texas
by 500 percent since he has been working with SPCA of TEXAS.

This Dave Garcia also lobbied the Texas goverment and they
passed a law where owners of seized animals can't appeal
they're decisions. This is not fair.

He seized animals all over the USA. They lie,cheat for the purpose
of lining their pockets. They'll show pictures of animals that
aren't even yours to promote their "cause".

We are powerless to stop them it seems. The story is the same..
They lie get warrants and then take you to court and present you
with a huge bill.

In my case the judge told me if I didnt' pay they'd put a lien on my house.
Harris County Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Position 1, Dale Gorczynsk
is this judge.

If you google SPCA and this judge you'll find out they're the stars
of the ANIMAL PLANET on cable TV.

How can this guy be impartial if he's on the TV program?

This is my story and this is one of hundreds that have happened in TEXAS.

SPCA came to our place last year about our Tx. Longhorns Cattle. We had about 14.
They accused us of not feeding them. We ended taking them to a auction where
we basically gave them away. That wasn't enough for SPCA. They went to all the places
I bought food for my animals checking up on us. I had a bunch of receipts
I could prove that I bought food. We gave the rest of the cows to a 300 acre farm
north of Houston. SPCA had a warrant to pick them up but we got them out of here
before they could take them. Once the cattle were gone they dropped the warrant.

Then a year later they show up out of the blue. That is what started them on my case.

They show up
here out of the blue. They go into my kennel where I kept some of my
yorkies. NO WARRANT! It was early in the morning and I hadn't done
my kennel duties because I was at the feed store buying food for my animals.

They tell my husband to have me call them that day. I called and called
and couldn't get ahold of the person who told me to call.

NEXT DAY THEY SHOW UP HERE WITH A WARRANT TO PICK UP ALL MY ANIMALS. THEY TOOK
MY YORKIES,CHICKENS,PEACOCKS AND GUINEAS.

Then the next morning about 9 am here they come with like 10 cops
cars and a big livestock trailer. They come up here and show me
a warrant that just has someones initials on it no name. nO JUDGES SIGNATURE
JUST SOMEONES (NOT THE JUDGES) INTIALS.

They said on TV they were here 4 times. They weren't here for a whole year.
We did what they asked to do. We built new cages.

They kept telling us we weren't feeding them. (cows) Oh my husband owned
the cows and he was sick at the time with diabetes.. I was the one who
DID feed them every day. Anyway to make a long story short we
ended up selling them at a local auction and taking a huge loss just
to get rid of some of them. They went to all the places where I bought
food and asked them if I bought food. One FEED STORE told me they were getting
a warrant to seize the rest of our cattle. SO We moved them to another place
far from here to prevent them from taking them.

Once we moved them we didin't see them for a year. In the mean time
I started raising chickens for eggs and hatching eggs. I also started raising peacocks. I had peacocks I bought that were $500 each. Nice peacocks
and green color.

I had been starting to raise peacocks and chickens. I raised almost all
from eggs or babies. They got all of them!!

This was my livehood not to mention that I loved them too. I had moved
the peacocks from their muddy pens to a cement deck. It had rained and had
mud on it. They chased all my peacocks down to one end of this pen and took
a picture of them and said they were overcrowded. That pen was 14x48x34.

Last year they told me to put all my pet roosters in pens and there was
a lot of roosters in that pen. Little ones that weighed around 2 to 3 pounds
each.

They never gave me a chance to do anything. Move some of the birds
or anything.

We go to court. I didn't have a attorney and they didn't offer one either.
I had talked to one who told me it would be $5000 up front. Well
you know you can't afford that on egg money.

They violated a bunch of my civil constitutional rights. In court the SPCA
presented me a bill for almost $24,000. The judge told me if I didn't pay
they would put a lien on my house. They told me if I gave them up
I'd still have to pay for the lab work.

Speaking of lab work.....The chickens and peacocks didn't have any diseases
and had no parasites. I knew that because I worm and take care of them.

They also took my yard dog. A Australasian shepherd that someone
gave me a couple of months ago to help protect my flock against predators.
The people who gave him to me got him from SPCA and he was heartworm
positive. I had one yorkie that was old and was heartworm postive and
also no worms found in the dogs.

I'm lost and have no income now.

I just thought it might be a good idea to revisit these theiving
bastards. We're not the only one that they're going after. They have too much power and need to be stopped.

Thank you for reading this and maybe you can help me or send me
a direction to get help.

Diane Falbe