SPCA responds

As promised, here's SPCA of Texas attorney Claire Schwarz responding to Dr. Gaylon TeSlaa's remarks. Letter is unedited and all links are hers:

Re: Gaylon TeSlaa’s letter of June 5, 2005 

To whom it may concern: 

We were made aware of Gaylon TeSlaa’s (“TeSlaa”) letter posted on your website on June 6, 2005. As I will explain, TeSlaa’s letter contains numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods. 

I will first address TeSlaa’s defamatory statement that the “SPCA is actually having technicians or unlicensed veterinarians performing spays and neuters”, TeSlaa, a California veterinarian, plainly is ignorant of Texas law. Rule §573.35 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, provides that “[e]ach veterinarian, including a relief veterinarian, shall post or display at the veterinarian’s practice location, whether mobile or fixed, his or her license to practice veterinary medicine and the most recent license renewal certificate.” The SPCA only employs licensed veterinarians to perform spay and neuter surgeries. TeSlaa’s false declaration is extremely harmful to the reputation and integrity of the SPCA of Texas. TeSlaa fails to provide any evidence supporting his defamatory remark, even though he said that he “asked an awful lot of questions.” The SPCA of Texas takes such allegations very seriously and will be carefully examining its possible remedies against TeSlaa. 

TeSlaa’s statements about the case of State of Texas v. Pamela Chennault, Case No. 04-D-0034, are demonstrably false. Deputy Sheriff Brandon Anderson of the Hopkins County, Texas Sheriff’s Department was the law enforcement officer in charge of the seizure conducted on September 11, 2004 of the animals located on the premises of Pamela Chennault (“Chennault”) , Route 2, Box 307, Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482 (FM 2560). Dave Garcia, the SPCA of Texas Vice President of Operations, accompanied Deputy Anderson on the September 7, 2004 (or thereabouts) investigation of Chennault’s premises. While present on the premises, Mr. Garcia photographed the then-current conditions of Chennault’s home and yard, showing the living quarters of Chennault’s dogs. The photographs may be viewed at www.spca.org. During this investigation, some 70 dogs were kept at Chennault’s residence. Chennault was aware that this investigation had taken place. 

On September 11, 2004, 4 days following the investigation, Deputy Anderson obtained a warrant from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Yvonne King, authorizing the seizure of the animals located at Chennault’s residence. Mr. Garcia was present when Deputy Anderson submitted the investigative evidence in support of the warrant to Judge King. Mr. Garcia discussed with Judge King the evidence demonstrated by the photographs. Contrary to TeSlaa’s contention that “Mr. Garcia was getting the judge’s signature for the raid,” it was Deputy Anderson who obtained the warrant for seizure as he was the law enforcement officer in charge of this case. In his sworn Application for Warrant to Seize Cruelly-Treated Animal, Deputy Anderson testified that he had reason to believe and did believe that approximately 70 dogs were being cruelly treated. The Application sets forth the facts showing the probable cause in support of the warrant. Those facts were “upon observation of animals by myself and SPCA the animals are living in their own feces, inappropriate shelter, water, and food.Also numerous dogs in each pen.” The State of Texas defines “cruelly treated” to include “tortured, seriously overworked, unreasonably abandoned, unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter, cruelly confined, or caused to fight with another animal.” (Tex. Health & Safety Code, §821.021) 

TeSlaa argues that “the general strategy is to depict everything in the worst possible light. Get a picture of an animal behind a chain link fence with a pathetic expression and a few close-ups on some unscooped poop (which I got plenty of AT the SPCA as well), and you can pull at anyone’s heart strings!” (emphasis in original). Contrary to TeSlaa’s contention, a review of the photographs displayed on the SPCA of Texas website belies his argument. His contention certainly denigrates the integrity of Deputy Anderson, Hopkins County Attorney Dustanna Rabe, and Judge King each of whom reviewed the investigative evidence and decided that the evidence supported the issuance of a warrant for seizure and prosecution of the case. A review of the inventory prepared by the SPCA of Texas at the time of the seizure of the 24 dogs removed from Chennault’s residence shows the physical condition of the animals. The vast majority of the dogs suffered from matted coat, were covered with feces and urine, were urine saturated, suffered from hairloss, and had overgrown nails. (Exhibit “A” to the Officer’s Return). 

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 goes on to assert that in the Chennault seizure he was shocked and appalled at “their [sic] not being a veterinarian involved at any point in the process.” Although he fails to define what the “process” was, apparently he is referring to the process of removing the animals from the Chennault residence and transferring them to the Perry Campus of the SPCA of Texas located in McKinney, Texas. During those activities, Mr. Garcia was present to supervise the care of the animals and trained veterinary technicians performed the triage when the animals arrived at the Perry Campus. Mr. Garcia has more than 20 years’ experience in investigative work. He has also been an instructor with national institutions and law enforcement on a national basis. The SPCA of Texas maintains a medical clinic at the Perry Campus which is staffed by a licensed veterinarian, so the animals had access to a veterinarian. All of the animals cared for by the SPCA of Texas are inspected by a veterinarian while they are housed at the SPCA of Texas. Although TeSlaa implies that the care provided by the trained veterinarian technicians was deficient, he neglects to provide any evidence thereof. 

TeSlaa also contends that there was a lack of due process, asserting that there were “minimal to no warnings, pre-emptive inspections, no coaching or advice on how to meet standards.” The Chennault case was a civil case not a criminal one so the due process requirements are different. 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. 

The statute controlling the disposition of cruelly treated animals, §821.021 et seq. of the Texas Health and Safety Code, does not require any warnings, pre-emptive inspections, etc. to be given to an owner prior to a warrant being issued for seizure of the animals. §821.022 states: 

(a) If a peace officer or an officer who has responsibility for animal control in a county or municipality has reason to believe that an animal has been or is being cruelly treated, the officer may apply to a justice court or magistrate in the county or to a municipal court in the municipality in which the animal is located for a warrant to seize the animal. 

(b) On a showing of probable cause to believe that the animal has been or is being cruelly treated, the court or magistrate shall issue the warrant and set a time within 10 calendar days of the date of issuance for a nearing in the appropriate justice court or municipal court to determine whether the animal has been cruelly treated. 

(c) The officer executing the warrant shall cause the animal to be impounded and shall give written notice to the owner of the animal of the time and place of the hearing.

 Thus, the SPCA of Texas, or any other humane organization in the State of Texas, does not have any police power regarding seizures of animals. In the State of Texas, only law enforcement officials possess the authority to obtain and serve warrants. The SPCA of Texas supports law enforcement through conducting investigations, testifying as fact and expert witnesses, assisting during the seizure operation, housing animals during the impoundment, and should the court direct, take title to the animals once the court has terminated the ownership interest of the previous owner. 

A review of the court’s file of the Chennault case proves that these requirements were satisfied. 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.

If the hearing had proceeded and if the court had found that Chennault cruelly treated her animals, then the court would have been required to divest Chennault of ownership and either (1) order a public sale of the animals by auction; (2) order the animals to be given to a nonprofit humane society; or (3) order the animals to be humanely destroyed if the court decided that the best interests of the animals or that the public health and safety would be served by doing so. (Tex. Health & Safety Code, §821.023(d)). If the court ordered that a public auction be held, then Chennault had the right to appeal the order so long as she filed an appeal bond sufficient for the cost of housing and caring for the impounded animals during the appeal process. (Tex. Health & Safety Code, §821.025). If TeSlaa disagrees with the statute’s provisions, the SPCA of Texas suggests that he propose revisions to the Texas legislature. 

I trust that this information provides the necessary background to dispel the falsehoods set forth in TeSlaa’s letter. Lastly, I hope that TeSlaa will refrain from making such inflammatory fabrications about an organization dedicated to the health and safety of animals without at least having the professional courtesy to make a diligent and thorough inquiry into the actual facts of the case. 

Very truly yours, 

Claire Collins Schwarz
Attorney for the SPCA of Texas 

cc: James Bias, President, SPCA of Texas